Originally posted by Slaynn

Originally posted by Drakkhen

Everquest didn't make me believe in anything ... I purchased the game at release, played my free month then called it quits and went back to UO.

Asherons Call on the other hand made me believe in a world, Dereth. And AC was, imo, miles and miles ahead of EQ in every way. It's a shame MS didn't plaster posters of a half nude Sho chick all over comic book and game stores.

 

I did the same thing.  I played AC first and a friend convinced me that I should try EQ.  I could only stomach it for a couple of weeks before I put it out to pasture and never looked back.  I absolutely hated staring at a book to get mana back. 

 

It made me twitch.

Agree with both of you completely.  AC and UO were miles ahead of EQ in design. 

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

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.

Your three C's were replaced with things like:

Accessibility and instant gratification > Challenge

Soloability > Community

Journey is less important than the end-game > Content

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Nightbringe1

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

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.

 

 

"Taking single player group based design and forcing it into a multiple player environment."<--------

Everyone blames WoW for the down fall of mmo but WoW is simply a clone of EQ with faster leveling.

If developers would get off their lazy asses and expend on UO design the genre would be so much better.

 

Everquest was all about bringing the D&D experience to a persistant online world. D&D is all about a group of friends playing together, not soloing.

The design has been group based since its inception 20 years before EQ came out. If you want single player, Massive Multiplayer is probably not the best environment for you.

D&D is about playing the way you want to play, not about forcing people into cookie cutter roles.  If you D&D sessions were anything like EQ you had a pretty piss poor DM.

Sure D&D is more group based but it is not force group based.  The group was not a set size, there was also no maditory classes.

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.

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

Originally posted by thexrated

Your three C's were replaced with things like:

Accessibility and instant gratification > Challenge

Soloability > Community

Journey is less important than the end-game > Content

 

Your quite right there.

Especially the solo point, I really cant get my head round people wanting to play an online game and solo......

 I totally agree.  Although I never did end up playing EQ, i played Asherons Call.  And I find old school MMO's took SKILL to play.  Now you just log in and follow the quest lines and eventually you'll hit 60.  

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

 

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

So your blaming EQ for the fact that other developers 10years on havent done anything different with class systems?

Originally posted by Nightbringe1

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.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Nightbringe1

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.

I don't think friends were different ways around challenges like you think. I think Nightbringe had fun playing with real life friends because, well, they were real life friends.

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

 

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

 

So your blaming EQ for the fact that other developers 10years on havent done anything different with class systems?

You asked me to explain myself.  The fact is EQ was the start of the downfall.  Is it their fault that everyone has copied their lame ass design concept since, no.  But their hands are covered on the genre blood.

Originally posted by linren

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.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

 

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

 

So your blaming EQ for the fact that other developers 10years on havent done anything different with class systems?

You asked me to explain myself.  The fact is EQ was the start of the downfall.  Is it their fault that everyone has copied their lame ass design concept since, no.  But their hands are covered on the genre blood.

How is EQ the start of the downfall? Wasn't EQ one of the first MMOs? Also, WOW is a EQ clone, just a highly successful casual version of EQ.

The genre seemed much better back then because it was new, now that the honeymoon period is over we are all at home again bored.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

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.

 

 

"Taking single player group based design and forcing it into a multiple player environment."<--------

Everyone blames WoW for the down fall of mmo but WoW is simply a clone of EQ with faster leveling.

If developers would get off their lazy asses and expend on UO design the genre would be so much better.

 

"Taking single player group based design and forcing it into a multiple player environment."<--------

Where did you get that from........ What the hell does it even mean?

As for the the downfall of mmo's, people blame WoW because other developers went on to copy the WoW model, but it was a success not of design but of advertising....

Where does that come from?  Seriously?  There is little design difference between EQ and a single player rpg.  This is the problem mmo are being designed like single player games instead of multi-player universes.  Instead of finding a way to bring people together easier they force people into these little groups.

You dont comprehend very well.  I have read all of your replies, and they don't make sense at all. None of them. They are just lame rants. And I suppose you want a WoW type of UO enviroment it seams. Bah that.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

 

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

 

So your blaming EQ for the fact that other developers 10years on havent done anything different with class systems?

You asked me to explain myself.  The fact is EQ was the start of the downfall.  Is it their fault that everyone has copied their lame ass design concept since, no.  But their hands are covered on the genre blood.

There was nothing wrong with the class system in EQ1 as it suited the game, hard content and reliance on equipement/skill made real class diversity. Whereas modern mmo's have gotten easier, made no real change to the original way that EQ did classes, which would be fine if their game mechanics also complimented that.

I finded you saying "their hands are covered on the genre blood" is so stupid. The biggest game that suits your dramatic statement is WoW. There are more ballox WoW clones, full of idiots than EQ1.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Addt4

I dont see any other game not really having "cookie cutter roles" as you put it. DAOC had a good at making players unique within classes, but people would just spec a specific way. Other games have their little talent trees or what have you but they dont make characters unique. In certain ways characters could be more unique in EQ1, as later spells were hard to get, equipement made a massive difference, and player skill was more noticable.

 

That is it though.  EQ is a single player game in multipler clothing and almost every game since has copied its basic design, which is a single player design theme.  Uniqueness within the class is not the point.  What EQ brought to the genre is hard coded set roles.

 

So your blaming EQ for the fact that other developers 10years on havent done anything different with class systems?

You asked me to explain myself.  The fact is EQ was the start of the downfall.  Is it their fault that everyone has copied their lame ass design concept since, no.  But their hands are covered on the genre blood.

That's a lie. Here let me explain this to you. IF everyone copied EQ the games would be more challenging, and more group based. Are they? No.. the minority are. The majority of new mmos are coping wow. And yes wow did copy eq and dumbed it down for second graders. I see you mentioned here about how classes are ruined. I think that if a designer can come up with a class or a different mechanic for class and make it interesting. That is far more creative then saying here I want to have 1H Slashing and Fire spells and Minor Heals. In sandbox mmo's people STILL build thier character as if they where in a roll situation with some different avanues of abilities for different situations. EQ didn't start the forced roles. It just happened, by the players.

Originally posted by RamenThief7

Originally posted by linren

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.

Originally posted by RamenThief7

How is EQ the start of the downfall? Wasn't EQ one of the first MMOs? Also, WOW is a EQ clone, just a highly successful casual version of EQ.

Well those of us the were around pre-EQ it is the start of the downfall. 

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by RamenThief7

How is EQ the start of the downfall? Wasn't EQ one of the first MMOs? Also, WOW is a EQ clone, just a highly successful casual version of EQ.

 

Well those of us the were around pre-EQ it is the start of the downfall. 

What were you playing on the scale of EQ1 before 1999? UO was the only one near the numbers of EQ1.

Originally posted by Addt4

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by RamenThief7

How is EQ the start of the downfall? Wasn't EQ one of the first MMOs? Also, WOW is a EQ clone, just a highly successful casual version of EQ.

 

Well those of us the were around pre-EQ it is the start of the downfall. 

 

What were you playing on the scale of EQ1 before 1999? UO was the only one near the numbers of EQ1.

UO was a step backwards in MMO design. Isometric view only  for a MMO is laughable.

What did you play prior to UO? I was playing the Realm.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by Nightbringe1

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.

Originally posted by Eronakis

Originally posted by Venger

You asked me to explain myself.  The fact is EQ was the start of the downfall.  Is it their fault that everyone has copied their lame ass design concept since, no.  But their hands are covered on the genre blood.

That's a lie. Here let me explain this to you. IF everyone copied EQ the games would be more challenging, and more group based. Are they? No.. the minority are. The majority of new mmos are coping wow. And yes wow did copy eq and dumbed it down for second graders. I see you mentioned here about how classes are ruined. I think that if a designer can come up with a class or a different mechanic for class and make it interesting. That is far more creative then saying here I want to have 1H Slashing and Fire spells and Minor Heals. In sandbox mmo's people STILL build thier character as if they where in a roll situation with some different avanues of abilities for different situations. EQ didn't start the forced roles. It just happened, by the players.

Did you actually read or just skim and just to your own conclusion?  I'm not talking about a exact copy I'm talking about the core design.  The core design of EQ and WoW are exactly the same.  Sure leveling is different, WoW made even level mobs easier to kill, but at the core design EQ and WoW are both just simple minded tank and spanks.  EQ dumbed down the genre to be nothing more then a tank and spank design.

Games don't have to be skill based.  DDO for example did classes very well.  For the genre to evolve instead of continuing on it's same old single player design concept they need to go away from the holy trinity design.

Double post delete.