It's like backwards evolution. We were bipedal apes, now slowly reverting back into tadpoles. Look at the complexity and depth of SWG, Anarchy Online and EQ, just to pick 3, and compare them to the 3 'biggest' releases of the last year-- STO, CO and Aion. Yeah, there may be some good games coming out, just like there were some bad ones back then. But on the whole, the industry has dumbed itself down in order to rope in as many people as possible. Will it swing back? Maybe, once some of these crappy MMO's die off and companies realize we won't keep afloat some dull unimspired game just because it has nice graphics.
The newbie experience was actually better back then in some regards.
Its true that you were given a weapon and you went out and killed things...It was exactly like that, but you really missed the point. Today you get tutorials and a single character gets levels from like 1 - 15 doing newbie quests. These quests are also made in a way that one doesn't need a full group (or even a party) to accomplish.
The one thing I remember from the newbie experience back then....you went into a zone and were clueless about where to go, just went on killing things. The cool thing about it was that in almost every MMORPG of the past in that "newbie" experience I was able to have a party from as low as level 1....I mean you entered the field and players wondered why they had to kill things and both players didn't know much about the quest. They joined up.
Today, most games won't have you party until you are done through the newbie phase and you take on a quest that requires a party. The newbie experience today is playing an MMORPG but feeling like you are playing an online singleplayer game except when you are chanting that you need help with a boss monster. Then everyone joins you for 30 minutes hunting down a boss monster until the kill is made and everyone breaks up.
Back then you could have a party from level 1 to max without feeling so penalized. Today a newbie is expected to go through the same newbie quest each and everytime they make a new character and unless you reach a certain level, you can forget about having long standing parties. In fact it gets worse when you have to join a guild in a lot of games to be able to have an active party...
Back then it was easier to talk to people since you started the game and were sent underway. Today you must complete all the newbie quest for each character you make and it becomes annoying because if you don't complete the newbie quests, you end up actually having to grind and place you at a disadvantage.
Heh heh, reading this article and the comments of posters here had me dredging out memories from the swamp of my mind. I started with the text-based MUDs, then went to EQ1, AO, DAoC, and so on.
In my eyes neither old games nor new games are better or worse than the other as a generalised category. There were tons of things I liked and hated equally in all games I've played.
I switched between DAoC and AO quite frequently in my early MMO days for example.
DAoC is still highly playable, despite its lack of population, but AO is very hard for me to get into again. AO is the poster child to me of what makes the old games both great and horrible. It had a convoluted mapping system, a big learning curve for IP expenditure on designing one's character, it had tons of grind, bugs that probably have never been fixed, balance issues between the classes, holes in character progression based on each class, certain very annoying timesinks, a clonky UI and lack of basic multiplayer features that make for a well-running MMO (for example the reliance on third party bots just to see who is online in your org), etc. On the other hand, it was one of the first games to feature instances tailored to peoples' desires, an incredible storyline, places to explore and a massive world, the first perfectly 3d personal travel, great live events, a committed community, imaginative classes and monsters, and an overall decent PvP system that doesn't encroach on PvE. It also has some of the most memorable dungeons, and areas I've ever come across in a game.
But compare it to a more recent game like WoW, I can't say that AO is heads above WoW at all, especially vanilla WoW. I really enjoyed my time from 1-60 in the first existance of WoW. The original hand-holding to learn the game mechanics was not that bad. I felt that it only held my hand until about level 5ish and for someone just learning how to play the game, it could be quite challenging. EQ2 also has its good sides and bad sides. I admit I haven't played much of the most recent batches of MMOs to be released. I tried FE for a little bit and thought that though it wasn't for me, it was well-done.
All in all, I would say that there is perfect balance in quality between many MMOs designed pre-2004 and post-2004. There are some game features from the old MMOs I wouldn't mind seeing again, but there are game features from the recent MMOs I would like to keep.
This is a total biased comparison. Most of the things you say aren't even true. For example.
"Linear is the word that comes to mind when describing the worlds of newer games."
Ok just because you don't get that same feeling you had with your first game doesnt make any other game linear and have no immersion.
To be honest everybody's first MMO is more than likely be their best experience ever.
Nope. One of the best mmos I played was Dark Age of Camelot. War is a shame when i think about DAOC. I'd never play mmorpg if i'd start with mmos such War or Aion. Played T4C, Daoc, and it was a great xperience.
Actual mmos are linear, repetitive, boring. Brainless.
If you need something else you must play old mmos (UO) or FE, Eve.
I enjoyed reading the article. This is the author's opinion and not facts so we might not agree with the x/10 ratings and comments, but it was a fun read -- especially since I played some of the earlier games mentioned.
When it comes to the newer games, I agree that instancing can make a world seem too fragmented and then it no longer feels like a world. However, I would not throw out instancing completely. For raids this seems to make the most sense so that you're not camping something, hoping someone else doesn't tag the mob first. But overall, instancing takes away from the feel of a full world.
Even Guild Wars 2 is reducing its instancing (from what I've read) and I think its a great step. My short time in the original felt like I was either in a chat channel or in a small segment of the game when instanced. Maybe instancing makes the most sense in DDO, where you go on adventures in a small group then go back to public areas, because it is based on D&D.
Also, I agree that worlds are too linear now. A zone or area does not need to be specifically for levels 1-10, then 10-20, and so on. If you're in a world, why not at least run into people of different levels as you're out adventuring? As a game like this ages, the old zones are barren when new players join. I think WoW's Cataclysm is a great idea in that it changes some zones into multi-level areas. This will make each zone feel more busy. (I don't even play WoW, and I'm no fanboy.) It just makes good sense to me -- stop adding zones in every expansion and bring some of the new ideas into the existing world instead. Low level areas of aged games are often ghost towns, why not at least have new and old players at least cross paths?
Another point made that I agree with - the world does not have to be barren of interesting locations, and all of those locations do not have to include quest givers or be areas of importance. It seems that most new games have main towns and little in between. Its ok if it is supposed to be a lifeless desert, but even an abandoned campsite or cabin just makes the world a little more interesting and can serve as landmarks. There can be a lone inn on a road that has no quests but maybe an interesting NPC. There can be a cave that has a pool inside that makes you taller, shorter, green, or blue for a short time (if you're not already green or blue).
The reality is that I no longer have the time or patience to grind like the old MMORPGs made you do to level, but I also miss some of the exploration and feeling that the game was in a world rather than a series of instances. I want an MMORPG world to be meaningful rather than just one zone being meaningful based on your level. I don't need the world to double in size at every expansion if that means that low level, older zones become lifeless and that once busy social hubs are now desolate because there is a new, high level hub for players who have bought the latest expansion. A bigger world is not always better.
When it's your first MMO in an entirely new genre .. It's easy to have a sense of wonderment and awe traveling across vast expanses of empty plains to to get to a town.
When it's your 9th MMO and you've been playing the same stuff for 10 years .. sitting on numlock for 40 minutes to get to town is just annoying.
The comment above mine is very astute, I think. To be honest, this article almost immediately lost me at the immersion bit.
I just do not see how anyone can objectively say they feel Norrath is more immersive than Azeroth. Love or hate either game, this is something that can be measured outside of game mechanics, content, etc.
I was an adult when EQ came out, played it forever, have played nearly every MMO just a bit, and still play them today. I wouldnt call myself a fanatic for any one game, but I think I appreciate all of them.
WoW has its flaws, but one of them is *not* immersion. I also was blown away first logging into EQ. But I wasnt 8 so I think I had probably a more realistic perspective on this awe. As time moved along I realized that it was primarily because this was a very new thing. When I first logged into WoW, I was struck by just how far beyond EQ in so many little ways WoW really is.
Forget the artstyle, which can be polarizing. The zoneless, smooth scrolling, enormous world alone was a massive step up for immersion. In addition, the towns had scripted NPCs that were doing things. Children, women, workers all were going about their business. Of course eventually it gets familiar and possibly even old, but right off the bat it was extremely immersive. Moving out from the cities, you find small towns, outlying farms, then eventually bandit forts, etc. Each maintains this same level of "simulated life". Meanwhile, if you see a mountain in the distance, and start walking you will eventually get there.
EQ was great and mind blowing for the time, but the zones were very static. The NPCs were very scripted and lacked variety. The need for zonelines and the limits of the engine created some weird geography that was jarring. So many areas were walled valleys where a nearly square mountain range that was almost vertical surrounds an open area. A single tunnel through the mountains is the "exit"
This isnt to knock EQ, but if you want to be objective about immersion, how do you ignore this? Just look at EQ2 (which Ive played as long as I ever played EQ1). EQ2 is *far* more immersive than EQ1.
Giving the immersion knod so easily and by such a wide margin to the "old" games means you are leaning too hard on nostalgia and are not being objective. Of course the memories of a starry eyed 8 year old will be impossible to match for a jaded 19 year old.
One other comment is that threads like this will draw out very uneven replies by their nature.
This is basically like asking a group of old timers if todays kids are all nuts. What do you think the answer will be? It will be 20 hrs of complaining about how horrible it is today and how awesome everything was back in 1950.
I think its *intensely* ironic to see young people, who HATE the above attitude from older folks typically, doing the *exact* same thing when it comes to their hobbies.
"Back in the days of good ole EQ we didnt have no "quest helpers" dag nubbit! We went on 96 hour corpse runs, lost all of our gear over and over, had no clue where we were going, and LOVED every minute of it!!!!"
Its really funny... They did all that walking up hill in the snow too.
The funny part is if you use the WayBack machine and look at forums from original UO and EQ... NO ONE was happy. EVERYONE was hoping that the mothers of the creators would die from cancer. Anyone honest will admit that this is true. RARELY have I seen the bitter anger, and disturbing vitriole, I would see on those old "fan" forums outside of possibly a forum on politics or religion.
EIther we are in a parallel universe... Or the silent minority that was just LOVING life back then has now become HUGELY vocal.... Or people have REALLY REALLY selective memory and REALLY need to be confronted with their OWN posts from back in the day when they were most likely screaming "IF I HAVE TO CAMP ONE MORE G'DAMN DAY FOR JBOOTS I WILL KILL THAT MOTHER F'ER BRAD MCQUAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hee hee, I like both posts of the poster above me.
There were things I liked more in the older MMOs than in the newer ones and vice-versa. I didn't like corpse runs that much at the time, but in retrospect what I did like about them is that it made people appreciate those who could rez and those who could find bodies.
One thing that existed in the older MMOs that doesn't seem to anymore is player interaction beyond grouping or chatting to someone while soloing. Don't get me wrong, my main playstyle is soloing since I seem to have a strange play schedule in comparison to most people. With death being made so trivial in MMOs now, that element is lost. Also lost with those games that have made crafting accessible to everyone is the interaction between players for tradeskills.
I think EQ2 and WoW actually have the tradeskills about right balance-wise, though I wish Blizzard would make the recipes a little more useful for most tradeskills.
I like it when people buff each other a little, rez someone they see dead somewhere, heal a person up after a fight, help out in a fight that's going wrong, trains, etc. I guess in that sense a lot of the older MMOs had a social element that is pretty much missing due to convenience of play in the more recent MMOs. The more recent MMOs seem to have designed things for group or solo only: buffs that only work on you and your groupmates, encounters that lock, extreme instanced play, phasing. There are good things about the elements I mention, but there are also bad sides.
I basically hated WoW from my 3rd day playing.. a small damn world..some of the cities were bigger than the world but travel was a joke because it was all so close.. no immersion sorry when I can't go running over hills like I could in AC that isn't immersion. the play was boring.. I rather go back to the zones of EQ1 where the only game where their was some uniqueness.. the dungeon under the water where water breathing and swimming came into play.. the levitation.. the camoflauge that served purpose for getting around when you didn't want to fight all in site, the free fall where you could run off a cliff and float down! Than EQ2 was a horrible step back they removed the unique abilities.. where did the purpose of swimming go? Where did the purpose of fishing go? And wow was even worse.. swimming is and was pretty much non-existant.. the city that was bigger than the entire outside land was ridiculous it felt like I was walking into a dimensional zone or something. All games past EQ1 just kept losing any unique abilities it went for all graphics and removed the cool features like underwater dungeons, levitation, and free fall to name a few.
Comments
It's like backwards evolution. We were bipedal apes, now slowly reverting back into tadpoles. Look at the complexity and depth of SWG, Anarchy Online and EQ, just to pick 3, and compare them to the 3 'biggest' releases of the last year-- STO, CO and Aion. Yeah, there may be some good games coming out, just like there were some bad ones back then. But on the whole, the industry has dumbed itself down in order to rope in as many people as possible. Will it swing back? Maybe, once some of these crappy MMO's die off and companies realize we won't keep afloat some dull unimspired game just because it has nice graphics.
The newbie experience was actually better back then in some regards.
Its true that you were given a weapon and you went out and killed things...It was exactly like that, but you really missed the point. Today you get tutorials and a single character gets levels from like 1 - 15 doing newbie quests. These quests are also made in a way that one doesn't need a full group (or even a party) to accomplish.
The one thing I remember from the newbie experience back then....you went into a zone and were clueless about where to go, just went on killing things. The cool thing about it was that in almost every MMORPG of the past in that "newbie" experience I was able to have a party from as low as level 1....I mean you entered the field and players wondered why they had to kill things and both players didn't know much about the quest. They joined up.
Today, most games won't have you party until you are done through the newbie phase and you take on a quest that requires a party. The newbie experience today is playing an MMORPG but feeling like you are playing an online singleplayer game except when you are chanting that you need help with a boss monster. Then everyone joins you for 30 minutes hunting down a boss monster until the kill is made and everyone breaks up.
Back then you could have a party from level 1 to max without feeling so penalized. Today a newbie is expected to go through the same newbie quest each and everytime they make a new character and unless you reach a certain level, you can forget about having long standing parties. In fact it gets worse when you have to join a guild in a lot of games to be able to have an active party...
Back then it was easier to talk to people since you started the game and were sent underway. Today you must complete all the newbie quest for each character you make and it becomes annoying because if you don't complete the newbie quests, you end up actually having to grind and place you at a disadvantage.
Heh heh, reading this article and the comments of posters here had me dredging out memories from the swamp of my mind. I started with the text-based MUDs, then went to EQ1, AO, DAoC, and so on.
In my eyes neither old games nor new games are better or worse than the other as a generalised category. There were tons of things I liked and hated equally in all games I've played.
I switched between DAoC and AO quite frequently in my early MMO days for example.
DAoC is still highly playable, despite its lack of population, but AO is very hard for me to get into again. AO is the poster child to me of what makes the old games both great and horrible. It had a convoluted mapping system, a big learning curve for IP expenditure on designing one's character, it had tons of grind, bugs that probably have never been fixed, balance issues between the classes, holes in character progression based on each class, certain very annoying timesinks, a clonky UI and lack of basic multiplayer features that make for a well-running MMO (for example the reliance on third party bots just to see who is online in your org), etc. On the other hand, it was one of the first games to feature instances tailored to peoples' desires, an incredible storyline, places to explore and a massive world, the first perfectly 3d personal travel, great live events, a committed community, imaginative classes and monsters, and an overall decent PvP system that doesn't encroach on PvE. It also has some of the most memorable dungeons, and areas I've ever come across in a game.
But compare it to a more recent game like WoW, I can't say that AO is heads above WoW at all, especially vanilla WoW. I really enjoyed my time from 1-60 in the first existance of WoW. The original hand-holding to learn the game mechanics was not that bad. I felt that it only held my hand until about level 5ish and for someone just learning how to play the game, it could be quite challenging. EQ2 also has its good sides and bad sides. I admit I haven't played much of the most recent batches of MMOs to be released. I tried FE for a little bit and thought that though it wasn't for me, it was well-done.
All in all, I would say that there is perfect balance in quality between many MMOs designed pre-2004 and post-2004. There are some game features from the old MMOs I wouldn't mind seeing again, but there are game features from the recent MMOs I would like to keep.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Nope. One of the best mmos I played was Dark Age of Camelot. War is a shame when i think about DAOC. I'd never play mmorpg if i'd start with mmos such War or Aion. Played T4C, Daoc, and it was a great xperience.
Actual mmos are linear, repetitive, boring. Brainless.
If you need something else you must play old mmos (UO) or FE, Eve.
I enjoyed reading the article. This is the author's opinion and not facts so we might not agree with the x/10 ratings and comments, but it was a fun read -- especially since I played some of the earlier games mentioned.
When it comes to the newer games, I agree that instancing can make a world seem too fragmented and then it no longer feels like a world. However, I would not throw out instancing completely. For raids this seems to make the most sense so that you're not camping something, hoping someone else doesn't tag the mob first. But overall, instancing takes away from the feel of a full world.
Even Guild Wars 2 is reducing its instancing (from what I've read) and I think its a great step. My short time in the original felt like I was either in a chat channel or in a small segment of the game when instanced. Maybe instancing makes the most sense in DDO, where you go on adventures in a small group then go back to public areas, because it is based on D&D.
Also, I agree that worlds are too linear now. A zone or area does not need to be specifically for levels 1-10, then 10-20, and so on. If you're in a world, why not at least run into people of different levels as you're out adventuring? As a game like this ages, the old zones are barren when new players join. I think WoW's Cataclysm is a great idea in that it changes some zones into multi-level areas. This will make each zone feel more busy. (I don't even play WoW, and I'm no fanboy.) It just makes good sense to me -- stop adding zones in every expansion and bring some of the new ideas into the existing world instead. Low level areas of aged games are often ghost towns, why not at least have new and old players at least cross paths?
Another point made that I agree with - the world does not have to be barren of interesting locations, and all of those locations do not have to include quest givers or be areas of importance. It seems that most new games have main towns and little in between. Its ok if it is supposed to be a lifeless desert, but even an abandoned campsite or cabin just makes the world a little more interesting and can serve as landmarks. There can be a lone inn on a road that has no quests but maybe an interesting NPC. There can be a cave that has a pool inside that makes you taller, shorter, green, or blue for a short time (if you're not already green or blue).
The reality is that I no longer have the time or patience to grind like the old MMORPGs made you do to level, but I also miss some of the exploration and feeling that the game was in a world rather than a series of instances. I want an MMORPG world to be meaningful rather than just one zone being meaningful based on your level. I don't need the world to double in size at every expansion if that means that low level, older zones become lifeless and that once busy social hubs are now desolate because there is a new, high level hub for players who have bought the latest expansion. A bigger world is not always better.
Pretty silly.
When it's your first MMO in an entirely new genre .. It's easy to have a sense of wonderment and awe traveling across vast expanses of empty plains to to get to a town.
When it's your 9th MMO and you've been playing the same stuff for 10 years .. sitting on numlock for 40 minutes to get to town is just annoying.
Ah you were 8?!? So your scroing these old v. new genre games based on what your remember in your preadolecents? It does explain much little one
The comment above mine is very astute, I think. To be honest, this article almost immediately lost me at the immersion bit.
I just do not see how anyone can objectively say they feel Norrath is more immersive than Azeroth. Love or hate either game, this is something that can be measured outside of game mechanics, content, etc.
I was an adult when EQ came out, played it forever, have played nearly every MMO just a bit, and still play them today. I wouldnt call myself a fanatic for any one game, but I think I appreciate all of them.
WoW has its flaws, but one of them is *not* immersion. I also was blown away first logging into EQ. But I wasnt 8 so I think I had probably a more realistic perspective on this awe. As time moved along I realized that it was primarily because this was a very new thing. When I first logged into WoW, I was struck by just how far beyond EQ in so many little ways WoW really is.
Forget the artstyle, which can be polarizing. The zoneless, smooth scrolling, enormous world alone was a massive step up for immersion. In addition, the towns had scripted NPCs that were doing things. Children, women, workers all were going about their business. Of course eventually it gets familiar and possibly even old, but right off the bat it was extremely immersive. Moving out from the cities, you find small towns, outlying farms, then eventually bandit forts, etc. Each maintains this same level of "simulated life". Meanwhile, if you see a mountain in the distance, and start walking you will eventually get there.
EQ was great and mind blowing for the time, but the zones were very static. The NPCs were very scripted and lacked variety. The need for zonelines and the limits of the engine created some weird geography that was jarring. So many areas were walled valleys where a nearly square mountain range that was almost vertical surrounds an open area. A single tunnel through the mountains is the "exit"
This isnt to knock EQ, but if you want to be objective about immersion, how do you ignore this? Just look at EQ2 (which Ive played as long as I ever played EQ1). EQ2 is *far* more immersive than EQ1.
Giving the immersion knod so easily and by such a wide margin to the "old" games means you are leaning too hard on nostalgia and are not being objective. Of course the memories of a starry eyed 8 year old will be impossible to match for a jaded 19 year old.
One other comment is that threads like this will draw out very uneven replies by their nature.
This is basically like asking a group of old timers if todays kids are all nuts. What do you think the answer will be? It will be 20 hrs of complaining about how horrible it is today and how awesome everything was back in 1950.
I think its *intensely* ironic to see young people, who HATE the above attitude from older folks typically, doing the *exact* same thing when it comes to their hobbies.
"Back in the days of good ole EQ we didnt have no "quest helpers" dag nubbit! We went on 96 hour corpse runs, lost all of our gear over and over, had no clue where we were going, and LOVED every minute of it!!!!"
Its really funny... They did all that walking up hill in the snow too.
The funny part is if you use the WayBack machine and look at forums from original UO and EQ... NO ONE was happy. EVERYONE was hoping that the mothers of the creators would die from cancer. Anyone honest will admit that this is true. RARELY have I seen the bitter anger, and disturbing vitriole, I would see on those old "fan" forums outside of possibly a forum on politics or religion.
EIther we are in a parallel universe... Or the silent minority that was just LOVING life back then has now become HUGELY vocal.... Or people have REALLY REALLY selective memory and REALLY need to be confronted with their OWN posts from back in the day when they were most likely screaming "IF I HAVE TO CAMP ONE MORE G'DAMN DAY FOR JBOOTS I WILL KILL THAT MOTHER F'ER BRAD MCQUAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hee hee, I like both posts of the poster above me.
There were things I liked more in the older MMOs than in the newer ones and vice-versa. I didn't like corpse runs that much at the time, but in retrospect what I did like about them is that it made people appreciate those who could rez and those who could find bodies.
One thing that existed in the older MMOs that doesn't seem to anymore is player interaction beyond grouping or chatting to someone while soloing. Don't get me wrong, my main playstyle is soloing since I seem to have a strange play schedule in comparison to most people. With death being made so trivial in MMOs now, that element is lost. Also lost with those games that have made crafting accessible to everyone is the interaction between players for tradeskills.
I think EQ2 and WoW actually have the tradeskills about right balance-wise, though I wish Blizzard would make the recipes a little more useful for most tradeskills.
I like it when people buff each other a little, rez someone they see dead somewhere, heal a person up after a fight, help out in a fight that's going wrong, trains, etc. I guess in that sense a lot of the older MMOs had a social element that is pretty much missing due to convenience of play in the more recent MMOs. The more recent MMOs seem to have designed things for group or solo only: buffs that only work on you and your groupmates, encounters that lock, extreme instanced play, phasing. There are good things about the elements I mention, but there are also bad sides.
We have to take the good with the bad though.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
I basically hated WoW from my 3rd day playing.. a small damn world..some of the cities were bigger than the world but travel was a joke because it was all so close.. no immersion sorry when I can't go running over hills like I could in AC that isn't immersion. the play was boring.. I rather go back to the zones of EQ1 where the only game where their was some uniqueness.. the dungeon under the water where water breathing and swimming came into play.. the levitation.. the camoflauge that served purpose for getting around when you didn't want to fight all in site, the free fall where you could run off a cliff and float down! Than EQ2 was a horrible step back they removed the unique abilities.. where did the purpose of swimming go? Where did the purpose of fishing go? And wow was even worse.. swimming is and was pretty much non-existant.. the city that was bigger than the entire outside land was ridiculous it felt like I was walking into a dimensional zone or something. All games past EQ1 just kept losing any unique abilities it went for all graphics and removed the cool features like underwater dungeons, levitation, and free fall to name a few.