Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What gave older MMO's more depth of gameplay than modern MMO's?
Calerxes
Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
Following on from my last thread I've seen the comment about older MMO's having more depth of gameplay many times but no real explanation and wonder is that true? I have to admit that I found World Of Warcrft quite shallow as it really to me seemed to just revolve around quest grinding, now even though many of the quests and lore in WoW were interesting and fun after 10 months of that without really any restbite it became tedious for me. In EQ2, LoTRO, Aion and especially EVE, Vanguard and POTBS in the p2p arena I found that these games had other things to do, instead of quest grinding, like strategic combat, good economies, good social tools, housing, deeper and more useful crafting, politics and diplomacy systems with much better character customisation with all combat spells/moves being useful. Even in some f2p games like UWO, Jade Dynasty, Atlantica, etc... we have great customisation of characters, meaningful PvP with contested areas creating politics between the big guilds, decent crafting systems, loads of social tools and even beasteries/knowledge books for us to compile which WoW lacks.
My only thoughts are that people seem to think WoW is the ONLY modern MMO and don't look further into the vast array of MMO's that exist or seem to want to revel in their past memories of great times by putting down modern MMO's with this throwaway line that really is never backed up. Have I misconstrued what is meant by depth of gameplay? because I see plenty of deep MMO's on the market where you actions count or have storylines that put you in the centre of an epic tale. I must admit though that games like Warhammer, AOC and Rift really have not got deep systems to keep you enthralled with the game and thats a shame but over my many years playing video games, 30+ years, there have only been a few great deep games (in context to the 10000's of games that have been made) that have left a lasting mark on my memory and the vast majority are just fun diversions. Having the expectation that every game will be deep and challenging is a tall order and one that is not achieved with today's or yesterday's games as there were many simplistic games in the past its just those games have fallen from memory.
If you keep on expecting a AAA MMO company is going plop the perfect deep MMO in your lap you will be eternally disappointed but lower expectation a bit and there is a world of depth outside of the main AAA world. I agree with the thread about modern MMO's doing fine its just many people around here are just ignoring them.
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Comments
Well, while you quite rightly identified EVE as an MMO with depth, I'll disagree with you for LOTRO, Aion, and other theme park clones perhaps because we have a different definition of what depth means.
You are referring to things to do, and that's one (however small) component. I know that when I use the term depth I'm referring to the actual game mechanics employed. Let's take one example from DAOC. (a well made, theme park game)
In DAOC characters had races that favored different stats which you applied to them at creation which could never be altered. While there were standardized builds, there was variations, you might create a Highlander Infilitrator (stealther) with high strength who was very good at using slashing damage type weapons vs an Infiltrator of a different race who benefited from high Dexterity and would use pierceing damage weapons.
This was no small decision, each weapon did different types of damage, (slashing, piercing, crushing) and each damage type worked better on certain types of armor (crush was best against plate, pierceing worked well against chain) and slashing was sort of middle of the road against all as I recall (maybe not so much for leather).
NPC's also had strengths and weaknesses to different damage types (and did damage of each type) so players had to carefully chose what NPC's and players they attacked, making sure they had an advantage whenever possible. The slashing infiltrator fared much better against plater wearers than a piercing Infiltrator, and same with NPC's, you could kill much faster and of higher CON (level) NPC's if you chose wisely. (though as I recall, Infiltrators generally avoided plate wearers and favored killing cloth casters)
Speaking of gear, it had stats too. No, not talking about what bonuses it imparted, it had a quality rating (up to 100%) and gear rated 100% (made by crafters only) was much superior in terms of benefit to gear with even a 90% quality. But wait, there's more, there was also a durability rating, gear wore out, and the lower its durability, the less benefits it imparted. While you could repair your gear back to full functionality, there was a long term wear factor that meant eventually you'd have to replace the weapon, regardless of what it was. (and yes, I kept some so long they wore out and had to be discarded, my first flaminig sword was one such item and I mourned its passing)
Wait, there's more, how about the con system. Sure, all MMO's have levels for NPC's but DAOC was just so much better. Not only did the NPC's have con levels (gray,green, blue, yellow, orange, red, purple) but so did players and gear.
Killing gray players imparted no realm points, and you didn't get a whole lot for green either. Killing red players really got you a lot of realm points (could only be done as a team) and if you tried to equip a purple gear item (you could) it would wear out extremely fast. ( I routinely equipped red items an replaced them frequently for the extra oomph)
OK, I'll stop now, but I could actually elaborate a bit more on these three systems. They are by no means the only way DAOC had more depth, but I recall spending hours over a player made spreadsheet that allowed you to try to craft various builds based on player stats, gear, enchantments to gear etc. It truly was both an art and a science to craft a superior character and gear it properly. (translation, yes it was challenging)
OP, you asked why we never back up our assertions of older MMO's having depth than today's offerings, there just isn't enough time in the day to detail all the ways, but here was at least some idea of what we typically mean.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
One might be able to argue that even WoW has "strategic combat, good economies, and good social tools".
What I don't like is when a game makes something overly complicated to create the illusion of depth. Like in EVE trying to figure out the maximum range of a missile. Its a simple calculation, but the developers intentionally didn't put it into the GUI. So I end up doing all this basic math all the time that would be much better suited to computer calculation. CCP is notorious for doing this. Why call it a "Scourge Missile" rather than a "Kinetic Missile". Its like if they throw enough busy work at you you'll think you're clever once you get it worked out. The larger the pile of reference printouts you need the deeper the game must be.
Now granted there IS a lot of depth to EVE, but they tend to overdo the tedium.
It seems to be the trend in deeper games to simple create roadblocks in the way of progress then incentivizing the player with shortcuts and ways around the roadblocks. As another EVE example, are limiting manufacturing slots at a station creating depth or just incentivizing POS ownership? Maybe so, but I don't know if its the good kind of depth.
Is NOT providing a map creating depth or tedium?
Is downtime, delays, and long queues creating depth?
Is forced grouping creating depth?
One of the deepest games I ever played was Mindrover. I wish more MMOG's would try to provide that type of intellectual depth.
For me an MMORPG with depth has simplified, yet strategic and tactical, combat and complex economy.
Making Combat complex in the way you demonstrated in your example is stupid. Simply combat tools (simple to execute) but require tactical/strategic/team work to make them effective. Strategy example is not wasting your stamina/mana and meditating during combat for instance. Tactical example is positioning. Combat on and of itself should remain simple because frankly I don't want to play the action bar, I want to look at the world. I'm getting tired of looking at the action bar 90% of my gaming time.
Complex Economy is essential. I just find it annoying that monsters drop coin, they shouldn't.. specially non civilized ones. The only way to get money in an MMORPG should be just like in real life, Work or Business. Money also doesn't come out of thin air. There should be some sort of a centra-bank system. Something that prints out coins and it is limited. There's no infinite coin that's being pooped out of snakes and boars every time you kill some.
I don't know if you mean 'immersion' with 'depth' or just the complexity of its game features and mechanics.
I think the foremost reason in the difference between older and newer, or let's say most AAA MMO's since WoW and WoW included, MMO's are is I think one of design philosophy.
The 'themepark' term is very appropriate, because it's a design philosophy of pampering the player, making his gameplay experience as smooth as possible. In that same design philosophy fits cushioning a player for too harsh challenges, everyone being made equal as much as possible etc.
It doesn't mean that newer post-WoW MMO's don't have challenges or that older MMO's couldn't be a smooth gameplay experience, but it's where the priorities lie in design, which leads to different choices being made when one aspect of gameplay needs to be sacrificed or made subservient for another gameplay aspect.
For themepark MMO's it's providing the player a smooth, polished gameplay experience with as little annoyances along the way as possible, that's the highest priority in their design.
Older MMO's had that less as a top priority, making the gameplay journey for players an as smooth experience as it could be.
There were more rough edges, less systems built in to 'pamper' (by lack of a better word) or fully accommodate the player. With as a result more annoyances and frustrations that players could encounter.
But also, more freedom and flexibility in gameplay features: there was less a need to make every player and class completely equal in everything to every other player and class. Less of a focus on making polish and a smooth gameplay ride for players as a top priority also meant that some features weren't sacrificed for the sake of polish and 'the ride'.
Because the less features and complexity in them, the easier it is to control the gameplay experience and reach a high degree of polish. Less risk that some gameplay experiences could be less than smooth, and have rough edges. Which fits the priorities in post-WoW design philosophy.
Older MMO's you saw a lot more experimentation with all kinds of features and depth in them, and if that led to rough edges, players and classes not being completely equal or more challenges - and some annoyances - and a bumpier ride when leveling, then that was as it is.
The focus was more on providing a wider range of features and mechanics than on having the features that were ingame at the highest degree of polish.
It's simplification but high quality and polish vs complexity yet more balancing risks and rougher edges.
WoW era design philosophy is one of trimming away all (perceived) unnecessary fat vs pre-era WoW design where there was more fat even if not all features and complexity was 100% of functional use.
Well, this is all my opinion of course.
Kyleran gave a few good examples though, small yet still significant in how things differed in some features compared to those features in current MMO's.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Older games were written to be games. Newer games are written to make money.
It really is that simple. If you want money rolling in the door, you have to cater to the ADD crowd of teeagers who will "win" your game in 30 days and be gone, as well as the old timers who can only play for 5 hours a week but still want to fee like they're making progress.
That's why everything is stupidly easy in games now. The time-challenged can still feel that they're making progress becaues even a couple hours can net you a level. The ADD kids can blow by all the silly "content" and get to endgame where they can minmax against each other until they get bored and move on.
I don't see that changing unless a company somewhere feels content to just make a profit, rather than have to provide their investors with a 500% ROI every quarter.
It's probably important to note that these games are made in such a way that anyone can achieve "something" but only a few can achieve everything. To varying degrees of success.
The more "intellectual" depth a game has the smaller the group that will do well or even want to play it.
It's important to note that different people have different types of "intelligence". Howard Gardner writes about this and from what I've witnessed over my years he is absolutely correct.
I've met people who were just not the brightest stars in the sky when they were being engaged on an "intellectual level". But seeign them in action when they were firing on all cylinders was like witnessing gods among men.
I'm talking emotional intelligence, social intellgience, physical intellgence etc.
So adding more and more difficult game play based upon a particular subset of people is just going to be weeding out a whole lot of people.
I'm always for a greater range of people to populate these games/worlds as it makes it far more interesting and makes it a more vibrant community.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What you saw as timesinks in earlier games (which perhaps they were) served a very useful purpose and I don't think it was an accident on the part of the developers. For me it made the older games much more challenging and engaging and these are some of the features that have been largely eliminated from modern games.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
First & Foremost, most MMORPG fans want to play a game where there is a population or community. This may explain why many are hesitant to venturing out in the murky waters of F2P & lowely populated Indie games. I admit, I've had the blinders on a bit and have overlooked a ton of new MMORPGs that have flown under the radar.
I'll offer another theory. Older MMORPG games were more methodical and deeper because old school MMORPGs were games for enthusiasts. Think about what sort of folk were playing PC games in the mid-late 90s and what sort of folk where playing cheaper and more mainstream consoles & FPS (Doom, Heritic, etc.)
People that played Ultima Online & Everquest knew full well what they were getting into. If you didn't like the persistant hard knocks virtual world experience, you went back to playing your Nintendo. Today, (due to Blizzard's MASSIVE success at bringing in that Nintendo crowd into the MMO realm) Casual Gamers ARE in the MMO space and they are driving MMO development from the AAA publishers....not the traditional MMORPG fans left standing.
Is it really a big supprise that modern AAA MMOs have streamlined game mechanics to save players time when the biggest section of the MMO pie are casual gamers that appreicate time saving mechanics over depth?
Is it really a big supprise that modern AAA MMOs have reduced the amount of thinking and complexity in game play when the biggest section of the MMO pie are casual gamers that appreciate a simple hack n' slash experience over deep combat system that involves combos and counters?
With all that said, it was the options and choices that required thought that made the older games deeper than what we are seeing now. One could reach "endgame status" in Ultima Online as a Cook, Treasure Hunter, Warrior, Mage, Animal Tamer, Blacksmith, Tailor, Merchant, or Murderer. One can reach "endgame" in World of Warcraft by killing stuff that gives XP or turning in quests (which typically involves killing stuff) that give XP. That pretty much sums it up.
I fixed your statement. I think this one is more correctly.
The design focus in older games was more oriented towards building words, while the design focus in newer MMO's is more directed towards delivering games foremostly, less focus on virtual worldbuilding.
That's also a good point. I think indeed that the composition of the playerbase has changed, with the early adopters of those first MMO's, the first generations of internet savvy gaming crowd that was interested in MMO's a different one from the mainstream mass medium and crowd that currently plays online games, internet games and MMO's.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
While I agree that diversity in most situations is a positive, I will disagree with you on this point in regard to MMO gaming.
What you said about difficulty level weeding out people is exactly right....and is exactly what Blizzard aimed to bring down in their development of WOW.
With that said (having played UO for 4+ years & WOW for 5+ years), one of the most striking differences I seen in the game is the playerbase. Because of the hard knocks nature of Ultima Online.....it weeded out the players that didn't like the aspects of game play UO had to offer. Likewise, the people left standing were all in a similar mindset....and was MUCH more enjoyable of a game to interact with people in because we all shared the same general likes and dislikes of gaming. In addition, most of the players you ran into knew how to play the game well and handled themselves (and character) very well in combat. I found myself being a lot less fustrated with players doing dumb things in UO as I have in WOW.
On the flip side, WOW has brought in the BIG TENT era of MMO gaming....where all walks of all kinds are present. This can cause problems in development. Developers now have to pick sides on what sort of features get in the game. Of course the larger audience will get preference.....and as such, modern MMORPGs appeal to a more casual audience than before. YET, Blizzard can't alienate the "hardcore" crowd....and it becomes a challenge to satisfy all. What happens is you end up with a mediocre experience for all aspects of game play, but not truely great at one. So the mixed demographics have consequences in terms of development and the direction of the industry.
In addition....you find yourself in certian scenarios in the game that require teamwork and like mindedness where the people you get stuck with aren't interested in teamwork or likemindedness. For example; Being an old UO vet, I enjoy cordinated PvP. Oh lucky me, WOW has these very cool Battleground scenarios...which are the perfect place to enjoy coodinated PvP. Yet the system that WOW has for grouping people for these battlegrounds is tailored to make it easy and painless for the casual gamer that doesn't have the time or drive to make thier own group. Due to this mechanic, I get randomly stuck in a group of people who have joined the battleground NOT to PvP, but to grind out a PvP currency you get for "participating". While we have a dirverse group of gamers on my team....we are not aligned in our goal and ultimately we fail because of it. NOT a good experience for me.
New MMOs are focused around combat. Everything in the game serves to leverage combat. Character advancement, the game world, quests, crafting, economy (auction house), and anything else considered "content" nearly entirely only exists to leverage the combat portion of gameplay.
In older MMOs, combat was merely one facet of the gameplay, not the focus. Instead, the focus of the game was on the game world itself, and around how a player would situate their character within that world. There were several aspects of gameplay available to players, many of which required absolutely no combat at all, and they were designed to approximate depth as combat was. In other words, one could legitimately play the game and progress their character within mechanics that had nothing directly to do with combat.
Ultima Online, SWG (Pre-CU), and the more modern (but still 7 year old) Eve are examples of this. Each of these games offers several paths of gameplay that have nothing to do with combat, but are still legitimate and fulls modes of gameplay for many players. In part of this, crafting in each of these games is far superior to any other modern MMO, which in turn creates a much more complex game economy.
What happened is the gaming community exploded. Casual gamers are the majority now and games are catered more to them.
I dont mind it personally tho, i hated monster grinding in EQ and the only social experiences i will always remember more than anything in a game like EQ is all the hateful social fighting and kill stealing. Theres nothing fun about that to me. I find quest grinding much more enjoyable than sitting in one spot killing the same mob repeatedly to earn xp. Monster grinding can be fun in a game like Diablo ya know.
whatevs
I agree with what RajCaj said too.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief.
Join me on Twitch Facebook Twitter
OK playing devils advocate here
.
@Kyleran
I understand what you are saying in regards to combat and character customisation and my favorite MMO Lineage 2 had the same depth in regards to mobs as you had to know your opponents weaknesses before you engaged otherwise you would die easily but that was really only in solo mode as in a good group you would have enough skill variety to take any mob down within your groups range. I imagine outside of PvP in Daoc this would be true as well, as well as in AC, AO, UO and EQ so it really negates that as depth in my eyes. Now in regards to charactewr customisation if you have great flexibility that surely is depth but only if you can build a useful char from that flexibility, if most builds gimp you then its not worth toffee and will result in cookie cutter builds once an optimum build is discovered. In WoW I've heard that the top players and guilds number crunch as well so hasn't WoW got great depth as well?
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I agree with this for sandbox games and would love to see non-combat classes in MMO's in general but in AC, EQ, L2 its was the other way around so it is not a new phenomenom to centre a game around combat and EQ proved this by being the dominant player in its day.
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Older games were more-so designed with open environments and promoted in-game aid, necessities, cooperativeness and community from and through players' efforts and involvement amongst the player-base community.
Newer games are more-so designed with closed and instanced environments and promote in-game aid and necessities easily from linear questing efforts and involvement with static npc's.
Well said.
To me, the virtual world was the main difference that MMOs offered when the genre started. In a game like UO, that was a more "complete" world, and not one focused solely on combat. As a result, it had a greater amount of character interactivity and interreliance.
Lately, most games continue to narrow their worlds on just combat (both PvE and PvP), which removes a lot of possible variety from play. More and more, the focus also has tended toward instances, in both PvE and PvP, which removes the characters from the world itself.
EvE has continued to buck that trend, and some newer games like Mortal Online, Perpetuum, and Xsyon, are going for more of that old-school world depth, but the question remains on how popular that old style of play is.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
sadly this is so true. older mmos were made by pioneer devs that had a dream of a unique and ground braking worlds where you could get lost in fantasy and adventure with your friends for days on end. it was a jorney not a destination. now days 98% of mmos just want to squeeze out 50$ out of your pocket and see how long they can keep you subbed for. it's the age of the shiny, shallow and recycled.
Two ideas in yellow as to the pro's and cons of such systems used to counter you initial premises. All eras of games have pro's and con's and you cannot demiss them in such a way as to make one better than the other. I will say that some modern MMO's have taken the removal of what is considered tedious game design to far thinking thats all Blizzard did and really miss the point of the whole package that Blizzard delivered when they released WoW. Its all about balance, too complex and open and you have no real way to stratigise anything as you have to many variables to consider, too closed and instanced and it becomes to restrictive, predictable and easy.
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I have little idea of what your getting at
But I'll guess and what I wrote in orange is what I consider the pro's and con's, and which I appreciated about the older games, and leaves me as a 2-month transient in newer games.
As an edit, I agree on balance, and have not found the balance between the 2 in a long time.
First, depth is "Intellectual complexity or penetration; profundity". Its not "challenge" nor "demanding", "time consuming", "rewarding" or anything else. Its very much a word related to intellect.
Delays and downtime are important because they give value to the goals that require your time. "time=value" so "downtime=value". If it takes a long time to get your mana back then mana has value. If it takes a long time to find a group, then being in a group is valuable. In RL, I could pan for gold in a river. It takes time to get that gold. The time it takes to get the gold is what gives it so much value. Does that mean panning for gold is a deep and intellectual task? Of course not.
I was thinking of real life analogies to forced grouping. It takes four people to move my dining room table. Does that make moving furniture a deep and intellectual task? Okay so maybe its the teamwork that is deep, but moving that table requires teamwork. We all need to lift at the same time, move at the same time, etc, but its still not deep. The depth doesn't come from the forced grouping or the teamwork, but rather the nature of the challenge.
I don't think I would say that forced grouping adds depth. You might say that a particularly complex raid boss could add depth. Inter-class synergies or dependencies may add depth, but those are different topics entirely.
I like what Sovrath said about different types of intellect. It got me thinking about the types of intellect besides the engineering'y type that I am most familiar with. Features that reward the sharp wit of a natural leader add depth (I'll never forget the hugeness of Azeraphels Sarcastic Kingdom in AC). Maybe even the faux depth I talked about in EVE with all the basic math and time consuming word associations add depth for those who are particularly adept at it. Even the phsical intelligence could add depth for some (bullet falloff and archery angles come to mind, but reaction time not so much).
My meaning is really that many people saw EQ as too restrictive and forcing you to play a certain way and to some extent UO as well with its FFA PvP mechanic and conversely these same people see modern MMO's with instancing giving you more freedom on when and how you play the game, it really is in the eye of the beholder as you see the complete opposite. And my point about many companies not really understanding how Blizzard came to dominate the MMO space is that they think that just making games easier and removing percieved timesinks was how they did it and it much more complex than that.
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
UO is a split case, because there was a time it was FFA only, and a time where FFA PvP was optional and limited to a specific landmass. I get what you're trying to say, but the fact is that there was drastically more flexibility in not only how you developed your character, but in the sheer amount of relevant gameplay options were available to the player as well. Even within the scope of combat, whether you were a treasure hunter, an adventuring monster slayer, or a hunter that collected raw materials to sell/trade, there were considerably more options.
As per instances in new MMOs, they've enabled players in making it more convenient to participate in combat, but that doesn't necessarily make things any more complex. In fact, in this over emphasis on combat and enabling this focus, it's come at the expense of nearly entirely neglecting every other facet of gameplay.
MMOs have turned into a question of "what do I want to do in the game world today", to "what type of combat do I want to do today". For players who only care about the combat portion of gameplay, that's fine for them. But for people who like the variety and diversity of having the option of non-combat roles, they've been left out in the cold when it comes to modern MMOs. To me, that says that MMOs have lost a great deal of 'depth' by removal of countless options.
You know, most casters only had one type of damage, ie. Shadow, and some camps of mobs had strong resists to shadow and I recall how much they tried to avoid fighting mobs with shadow resistance even if in a full group. It is true, groups in general could take down anything, but how much mana, hits and energy they would have to give up during the fight would vary quite a bit. Remember downtime between fights was a very big factor in DAOC, and a fight against mobs that resisted most of your dps tended to increase the amount of resting significantly, so you tried to avoid it.
For roleplaying reasons one of my guilds could only be of the race of Kobolds (later Sylvans) and we ran into this phenomenon quite a bit, and we would groan at certain fights, even against certain human players who had geared up heavily in shadow resists (which we we're strong in)
EVE's the same way, every ship is strong/weak against various damage types and many times the battle is one or lost over who manages to outguess, out intel what their opponents brought to the fight.
I don't think WOW has anything like this really, bring a tank, healer and 3 DPS and you're pretty much good to go in any fight. I do recall in pre BC days some of the fights in MC and BWL had some tricks to them, one dragon in BWL required a certain number of rogues or you were doomed to fail, and I recall a boss in MC that had to have a hunter or two. But from what I understand, even that complexity was done away with these days, but I really don't know.
While there certainly were gimp builds, there were always at least two or 3 of every class that played quite differently in terms of how you dealt with them. (not the least being you had to learn to recognize 44 classes and about 18 races to make the proper determination and combat approach.)
I recall as a Healer wearing gear and weapons that lead people to believe I was a DPS class, and it worked, they didn't realize I was a healer for quite a while during most fights, can most other MMO's today make this same claim.
When DAOC was young, the world was so dark that wearing all black armor and keeping your torch off really was a huge tactical advantage. Size mattered, smalller characters were actually harder to target in a crowd, and if you made a short archer you made him harder to hit, but he couldn't shoot over the top of the keep ramparts, only through the slots.
Big fun and so much variety, I just don't see anything like this in modern MMO's, but perhaps there's a game I've missed out there.
Edit: In all fairness, DAOC was the only early game I played with this level of complexity, and while EVE is very similar no fantasy MMO since WOW seems to have taken this path. Guess I'm damaged goods.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I agree with much of what you say that was why I left WoW in 2008 as it was combat or nothing and I do like combat predominately, I also like to craft, gather and play the economy which I did in L2 (well gathering and combat are linked that game) and as I have said I'd love to see more non-combat roles in MMO's. But does just having interdependence and non-combat roles make older MMO's deeper than modern MMO's, it would be nice to have them back but MMO's like DDO with its strategic character building and complex dungeons, POTBS and its complex crafting, gathering and ship setups mechanics and Atlantica Onlines great strategic turnbased combat and grouping mechanics, are just as deep, well to me anyway. I'm all for making games more complex I like that but many MMO's today offer good flexibilty in how to play the game as they did in the past except they are swallowed up by many simplistic games like WoW, War, AOC, Rift et al..
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Thanks for the insight Kyleran, as an aside, I bought my first real PC in November 2000 I was ripe for getting Daoc at release in 2001 but really did not hear of it until much later which is a shame as the setting and me being English was perfect for me but I was too engrossed in playing FPS' and single player RPG's at the time, a missed opportunity really.
Cal.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.