Wow, those tenets are the utter opposite of what I want in a game. o.O But if some of you are delighted with them, I'll be happy for you.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
- An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.
- An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
- An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
So are you going to drop all your stuff on death or have permadeath or something? All the good resources out in the most dangerous PVP areas?
(TL:DR? - Just read through the bullet points and keep moving)
My concern with Mr. McQuaid and his games (plural) is that he keeps trying to recreate EQ (now sixteen years on). Looking at the path his subsequent games have followed leads me to believe that even if he succeeds in releasing THIS game it will only be a matter of time before:
A) He sells/incorporates it into a larger studio (Which he then follows up with how his 'vision' was bastardized) and the game follows a developmental arc far different than 'he intended'.
The game has a brief rise in popularity afforded to most new releases but fails to attract a sizable enough following to remain relevant for more than a few billing cycles (or months in F2P parlance).
C) The gaming community -AGAIN- rebels against the all-shared-world environment. (Games utilize instances for a reason, you know).
D) The concept of forced grouping (and by extension, RAID sized groupings) doesn't work quite as well in reality as it did on paper.
E) The Gaming community -AGAIN- rebels against the 'hardcore-gamer-centric' development style.
Okay, this can go on endlessly, but really - this is all based on the reality of gaming past as well as the current state of gaming as a whole (at least as I've witnessed it).
Bullet points expanded:
A) When Sony bought into (see: bought out) Verant and took over EQ, Mr. McQuaid was {paraphrasing} dismayed at the way his 'vision' of the game was 'distorted' (put gently). So, he made Vanguard... which was almost immediately sold to SOE... (you remember - the company that destroyed his 'vision' of the previous game?)
A lot of new releases enjoy the short term joy of 'The New Game' syndrome, but, in failing to meet the pre-release hype, fall by the wayside. Not surprisingly, (and going back a ways) EQ2 suffered this issue. Mr. Smedley all but flat out lied about what the game was going to be, and, as a result, in short order, World of Warcraft was the next best thing to Betty White (Followed by sliced bread). Gamers are alternately a forgiving and a fickle bunch. While WoW treated its customers like pay to beta players, it never (overtly) lied to them.
C) Mr. McQuaid seems to think that other players take pride and enjoyment in the success of people that are not, well, 'them'. As in Vanguard, the idea that players want to be forces to witness others gain the rewards they themselves wanted is in some way inspiring, or that the winner of said rewards will then support others in gaining equal praise is, well, a fallacy. In a (gaming) world of 'what's in it for me', this kind of thinking leads to early onset game death. (Did we learn NOTHING from Trials of Atlantis?!)
D) Following up on the 'What's in it for me' theme, the current min/max meta-/stat-based philosophy in gaming (as well as the antagonistic mood) makes the concept of 'forced' grouping... problematic, to be gentle. The second "M" in MMO is multiplayer. The "G" in MMORPG is 'game', not group. Forcing people to group to advance is a glaring failure waiting (probably not too long) to happen. Again, in min/max, meta-/stat-based gaming, if you don't follow the 'cookie cutter' version, you're doomed. Further, unless this game utilizes a mega-server, individual server populations will quickly becomes a major concern.
E) Again, harkening back to Trails of Atlantis, when will it become clear that the 'hardcore' concept is fine, as an overlay to the broader game base. The truly hardcore gaming community makes up a very small (but vocal) percentage of the total population. Unless the game is stand-alone (or capable of sustaining itself post release minus initial funding) catering to hardcore fans (while needing casual players for support) is a proven failed business model. A concept Mr. McQuaid should be well aware of.
While I don't wish failure for any of the developers for this game, I feel their inability to grasp the current gaming market dooms them none-the-less.
1. small budget, it is painfully visible in graphics and it will show in other areas as well
2. no mention of how they plan to make good AI (also doubtfully they will cause low budget)
3. Business model not adressed - if it does have microtransactions then I am not interested, if they plan to go P2P only then:
a) How they plan to make it viable long-term?
b) How they plan to succesfully keep 3rd party RMT and cheating in check? (again doubtfully they can because low-budget)
4. Brad McQuaid
Sorry. Words are cheap, but reality of situation is that Pantheon is now just another low-cost indie mmorpg project that build hype on 'old school' and it both does not have funds and solutions in how to fix old school mmorpg problems.
Wasn't Mcquaid accused of stealing money from the project though? Mismanagement was what it was labled? Did it ever come off of a hiatus of development?
(TL:DR? - Just read through the bullet points and keep moving)
My concern with Mr. McQuaid and his games (plural) is that he keeps trying to recreate EQ (now sixteen years on). Looking at the path his subsequent games have followed leads me to believe that even if he succeeds in releasing THIS game it will only be a matter of time before:
A) He sells/incorporates it into a larger studio (Which he then follows up with how his 'vision' was bastardized) and the game follows a developmental arc far different than 'he intended'.
The game has a brief rise in popularity afforded to most new releases but fails to attract a sizable enough following to remain relevant for more than a few billing cycles (or months in F2P parlance).
C) The gaming community -AGAIN- rebels against the all-shared-world environment. (Games utilize instances for a reason, you know).
D) The concept of forced grouping (and by extension, RAID sized groupings) doesn't work quite as well in reality as it did on paper.
E) The Gaming community -AGAIN- rebels against the 'hardcore-gamer-centric' development style.
Okay, this can go on endlessly, but really - this is all based on the reality of gaming past as well as the current state of gaming as a whole (at least as I've witnessed it).
Bullet points expanded:
A) When Sony bought into (see: bought out) Verant and took over EQ, Mr. McQuaid was {paraphrasing} dismayed at the way his 'vision' of the game was 'distorted' (put gently). So, he made Vanguard... which was almost immediately sold to SOE... (you remember - the company that destroyed his 'vision' of the previous game?)
A lot of new releases enjoy the short term joy of 'The New Game' syndrome, but, in failing to meet the pre-release hype, fall by the wayside. Not surprisingly, (and going back a ways) EQ2 suffered this issue. Mr. Smedley all but flat out lied about what the game was going to be, and, as a result, in short order, World of Warcraft was the next best thing to Betty White (Followed by sliced bread). Gamers are alternately a forgiving and a fickle bunch. While WoW treated its customers like pay to beta players, it never (overtly) lied to them.
C) Mr. McQuaid seems to think that other players take pride and enjoyment in the success of people that are not, well, 'them'. As in Vanguard, the idea that players want to be forces to witness others gain the rewards they themselves wanted is in some way inspiring, or that the winner of said rewards will then support others in gaining equal praise is, well, a fallacy. In a (gaming) world of 'what's in it for me', this kind of thinking leads to early onset game death. (Did we learn NOTHING from Trials of Atlantis?!)
D) Following up on the 'What's in it for me' theme, the current min/max meta-/stat-based philosophy in gaming (as well as the antagonistic mood) makes the concept of 'forced' grouping... problematic, to be gentle. The second "M" in MMO is multiplayer. The "G" in MMORPG is 'game', not group. Forcing people to group to advance is a glaring failure waiting (probably not too long) to happen. Again, in min/max, meta-/stat-based gaming, if you don't follow the 'cookie cutter' version, you're doomed. Further, unless this game utilizes a mega-server, individual server populations will quickly becomes a major concern.
E) Again, harkening back to Trails of Atlantis, when will it become clear that the 'hardcore' concept is fine, as an overlay to the broader game base. The truly hardcore gaming community makes up a very small (but vocal) percentage of the total population. Unless the game is stand-alone (or capable of sustaining itself post release minus initial funding) catering to hardcore fans (while needing casual players for support) is a proven failed business model. A concept Mr. McQuaid should be well aware of.
While I don't wish failure for any of the developers for this game, I feel their inability to grasp the current gaming market dooms them none-the-less.
Meh.
Most of your post makes sense for and applies to most of current MMO players. It does not, however, apply all MMO players. As long as the game is budgeted for a realistic number of players (4 or 5 digits rather than 6 or 7 digits) then all should be well.
The problem with too many MMOs in recent years is that they all chase after player numbers that will never happen. If they can keep investor, media and player expectations grounded in reality I don't see a problem.
Some time ago i've said the Game Tenets -list should be the first page in the 'MMO designer's manual for immersive and memorable gaming experience', and i still stand behind my words.
This is indeed the game that some are longing for or at least the type of game. They had a rough start, and issues along the way, but it has settled down now and they are make steady progress. Sure the graphics aren't there just yet, but as gets quoted in many games, "its pre Alpha" and its way better than where they started.
It also blows my mind that people object to a grouping centric games, whats the point of multiplayer if you don't group? The thing this game will do is make classes that compliment each other and create opportunities you just don't see anymore. If grouping is a key element then finding groups won't be the issue it is in modern games where large portions of the community go it alone. Class balance is the only real thing that would hold it back, but having utility classes on top of the proven Trinity adds more flavor than piecemeal arrangements they are trying in newer games.
Last I heard it was targeted at a specific audience and not expected to be the next WoW, but instead to have a sustainable following as a niche game. Given the sheer volume of under populated MMO's these days its seems like a sound strategy not to over budget or try to cater for everyone. The business model I believe was to be sub, again as its a targeted audience.
You can say a lot about Brad, but has anyone else produced anything close to EQ or Vanguard, so whether it happens or not , it is still also what I am "longing for..."
Have we heard about the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" while it's still in development?
How many times has the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" actually released and turned out to not have been the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for"?
I would suggest we tone it down a little and take a "wait and see" approach. Let's wait and see what actually develops before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago.
Originally posted by Foomerang I wish these devs all the best and hope they deliver on their promises. But it has become increasingly difficult to rally behind words anymore.
Yea, this is me, too...
Kind of a "been there, done that" feel to it. Words are easy to write. Actions are a bit more complex
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by flizzer "An immersive world needs intelligent inhabitants." Wait, so gamers will not be playing this game?
^^ Someone should put this in their signature.
Most gamers will be doing repetitive daily quests while tending to their garrisons. But that's totally OK. Not everyone is looking for the same game experience!
What the hell is "hardcore"? It is a BS concept used in place of "omg I would actually have to make time for that"... which most people can actually do at some point of each week or month. It is a BS concept used in place of "omg I can't play this class solo against those creatures cause god forbid I learn my skills, maybe read even"...
Okay, this can go on endlessly, but really - this is all based on the reality of gaming past as well as the current state of gaming as a whole (at least as I've witnessed it).
Gaming past. IE => No MMORPG of quality found. (EVE seems to be the only possible exception, and for me, wrong IP)
Gaming now. IE => No MMORPG of quality on the horizon. Oh wait! Pantheon looks good, Shroud of the Avatar another possibility, maybe even Citadel of Sorcery (though I would actually have to look into that one further).
So no idea what you "witnessed", but it must be a very different past and present from what I have witnessed (at the very least).
----
What I "Witnessed" isn't a matter of speculation, it is fact - from my point of view, no quotes necessary. Further, if it "weren't" different from your experiences, or anyone else for that matter? If all gamers saw games in the exact same way, there would only need to be one game.
As for your claim that the past had no MMORPGs of quality, and the future only has two, maybe three, speaks more to my point that it does to yours.
Lastly, if you don't understand what "hardcore" means in this context, better to question it then ridicule it.
" before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago."
Its totally not going to be the savior of the Genre, in fact they are marketing as the opposite, it will appeal to some but not all, as is the niece market target audience. To those that do see it as the game they have been "longing for..." it implies just that, that nothing currently interests them and they look forward to a modernised version of the original games they played. Its definitely not redoing EQ, but taking those positive things that made EQ and VG great and adding some complimentary newer functions that can only improve a game taking it to higher level. Note: not next level, as it will be a better version of what EQ and VG were in there day, not some new direction that EQN is trying.
All of this is optimistic admittedly, but based on what they are trying to achieve, and very much what they are advertising. Same goes with any game, it a wait and see, but hopefully not toooo much waiting in that I hope they meet the proposed timeline.
Have we heard about the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" while it's still in development?
How many times has the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" actually released and turned out to not have been the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for"?
I would suggest we tone it down a little and take a "wait and see" approach. Let's wait and see what actually develops before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago.
Never. I can honestly say there hasn't been a game since Vanguard where I was this interested in ALL (as in, every one) of the game tenets and features the way. In fact, not even close. There have been games that have kept their tenets and features vague so as to appeal to a larger audience, but never have a seen a list like this that is so specifically describing the game I want to play.
1. Every games sounds the most amazing before it's released and before anyone plays it - pinnacle of hype for games
Uuuuh ...
Games that have definitely been quite a bit better than I expected when I started playing them:
- Baldurs Gate 2 - did expect more of BG1, but BG2 was substantly improved in every way.
- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - It was this game that actually made me a Star Wars fan.
- Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines - Excepted it to be a lot more shallow, but its throughoutly enjoyable, especially once you figured out the combat.
- Vanguard: Saga of Heroes - Just wanted a MMO with classic fantasy and a huge game world, really.
Theres other games that have been about as good as I expected (Like the original Baldurs Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights 2, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion etc) and quite a bit who have been worse (wont list those, obviously, though I will mention Neverwinter Nights 1 which really was just a demo what you can use the editor for).
Have we heard about the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" while it's still in development?
How many times has the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" actually released and turned out to not have been the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for"?
I would suggest we tone it down a little and take a "wait and see" approach. Let's wait and see what actually develops before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago.
Never. I can honestly say there hasn't been a game since Vanguard where I was this interested in ALL (as in, every one) of the game tenets and features the way. In fact, not even close. There have been games that have kept their tenets and features vague so as to appeal to a larger audience, but never have a seen a list like this that is so specifically describing the game I want to play.
I am not pointing to individuals here, I am pointing to MMORPG.COM as a whole, and the hype train that runs in an endless loop like a model train.
And as for what you are saying. I understand that, but you must know, that is exactly what is said by someone(s) with every new game's announcement.
I still chuckle when I think about the "GW2 Effect" and the "GW2 Paradigm Shift".
Have we heard about the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" while it's still in development?
How many times has the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" actually released and turned out to not have been the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for"?
I would suggest we tone it down a little and take a "wait and see" approach. Let's wait and see what actually develops before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago.
Never. I can honestly say there hasn't been a game since Vanguard where I was this interested in ALL (as in, every one) of the game tenets and features the way. In fact, not even close. There have been games that have kept their tenets and features vague so as to appeal to a larger audience, but never have a seen a list like this that is so specifically describing the game I want to play.
I am not pointing to individuals here, I am pointing to MMORPG.COM as a whole, and the hype train that runs in an endless loop like a model train.
And as for what you are saying. I understand that, but you must know, that is exactly what is said by someone(s) with every new game's announcement.
I still chuckle when I think about the "GW2 Effect" and the "GW2 Paradigm Shift".
We shall call it HYPEPIERCER! And, as you might expect, it runs off the suffering of children.
I would like to point out that while most of this sounds pretty great, theres some things that I'm not so happy about.
For starters, the downtime line made me go all "WTF ?????". I certainly dont want to be FORCED to social activity THROUGH DOWNTIME. Thats like being forced in D&D to have a Rogue with you, because otherwise you cant handle traps and locks. I always hated that mechanism, as I do hate this one. And I view it as one of the major improvements over EverQuest that nobody in Vanguard had downtime, except of course for the poor solo Warriors.
Also, I didnt liked what they said about faction. Welldone faction is good, but faction can also very easily be made into something completely braindead, as the Vanguard "city factions" proved only too easily. Factions, like everything else, should of course have progression - you should definitely not be WORSE off after you touched them.
Visible loot - thats very sad news. So there is no more searching for the obscure mob that drops the rare ingredient ? Personally thats one of these annoying "uuuh we want more realism in the game, even if it doesnt improve actual gameplay in any way, quite on the contrary" ideas that I despise and that appear on a regular basis in any gamer forum. Yeah I know its realistic that my character has to get a dump and that the character has to sleep and that the character has to eat. Still dont want to do such repetitive stuff. Doesnt give me a sense of realism at all, even less its any fun. Let those Sims player bother with stuff like that.
Limited number of abilities ? Now that sucks big time for me. That already sucked big time in Guild Wars. I dont feel challenged by being limited to 8 abilities, thank you very much. I hope these limits are pretty high.
I also miss the good old "you get more than just one job" from Vanguard. That was a central reason why the game was so fun, and why Vanguard classes are superior over EverQuest classes. You wouldnt be only a healer that can heal and otherwise do squat. You can and actually HAVE to participate in combat to be the better healer. That was awesome.
I also miss the good old reaction chains. Do we no longer get finishers after a critical hit, or a counter attack after a parry, etc ?
Sadly the combat in Pantheon sounds lot less complex than that of Vanguard. Drat !
Originally posted by Howbadisbad
So are you going to drop all your stuff on death or have permadeath or something? All the good resources out in the most dangerous PVP areas?
Well, if they do that, I'm definitely out.
I prefer item focused MMOs in which you can work days, weeks and even months on your gear. Took me about two years to get my Palladium Armor in my Death Cleric because nobody wanted to do swamp armor !
Games in which you just drop your gear in death and can lose it in a whim arent item focused. That means you can get new gear quickly. Thats not EQ, thats not Vanguard, and theres enough of these kinds of games already out there anyway.
For starters, the downtime line made me go all "WTF ?????". I certainly dont want to be FORCED to social activity THROUGH DOWNTIME. Thats like being forced in D&D to have a Rogue with you, because otherwise you cant handle traps and locks. I always hated that mechanism, as I do hate this one. And I view it as one of the major improvements over EverQuest that nobody in Vanguard had downtime, except of course for the poor solo Warriors.
It's the downtime that made the relationships form in EQ and VG. Being able to spam run through dungeon Ques in WoW without having to speak to your group members is one of the many reasons why the community's are destroyed in MMOs.
Also, I didnt liked what they said about faction. Welldone faction is good, but faction can also very easily be made into something completely braindead, as the Vanguard "city factions" proved only too easily. Factions, like everything else, should of course have progression - you should definitely not be WORSE off after you touched them.
I've always liked factions, but more in line with KoS factions like EQ launch. Trolls/Ogres being almost KoS in all cities and Humans being liked nearly everywhere. I believe that is currently the idea of factions in Pantheon with faction gains being able to be gained through quests/mob kills.
Visible loot - thats very sad news. So there is no more searching for the obscure mob that drops the rare ingredient ? Personally thats one of these annoying "uuuh we want more realism in the game, even if it doesnt improve actual gameplay in any way, quite on the contrary" ideas that I despise and that appear on a regular basis in any gamer forum. Yeah I know its realistic that my character has to get a dump and that the character has to sleep and that the character has to eat. Still dont want to do such repetitive stuff. Doesnt give me a sense of realism at all, even less its any fun. Let those Sims player bother with stuff like that.
I don't think this is referring to crafting ingredients, much more in line that you could see the Ghoul Lord wielding a Short Sword of Ykesha, not that it would be carrying the Flame of Ro in it's hand. Visible loot in this regard was a cool thing.
Limited number of abilities ? Now that sucks big time for me. That already sucked big time in Guild Wars. I dont feel challenged by being limited to 8 abilities, thank you very much. I hope these limits are pretty high.
I also miss the good old "you get more than just one job" from Vanguard. That was a central reason why the game was so fun, and why Vanguard classes are superior over EverQuest classes. You wouldnt be only a healer that can heal and otherwise do squat. You can and actually HAVE to participate in combat to be the better healer. That was awesome.
I also miss the good old reaction chains. Do we no longer get finishers after a critical hit, or a counter attack after a parry, etc ?
Sadly the combat in Pantheon sounds lot less complex than that of Vanguard. Drat !
This just depends on your perspective. Being limited to 8 spell gems in original EQ made you have to strategize your encounters and use your spell abilities wisely. I know I was rotating spells in and out often and you could tell good players pretty easily based off their rotation of spells/spell usage. I think it's a good thing, but I could see others wanting every spell available to them.
Originally posted by Howbadisbad
So are you going to drop all your stuff on death or have permadeath or something? All the good resources out in the most dangerous PVP areas?
Well, if they do that, I'm definitely out.
I prefer item focused MMOs in which you can work days, weeks and even months on your gear. Took me about two years to get my Palladium Armor in my Death Cleric because nobody wanted to do swamp armor !
Games in which you just drop your gear in death and can lose it in a whim arent item focused. That means you can get new gear quickly. Thats not EQ, thats not Vanguard, and theres enough of these kinds of games already out there anyway.
I highly doubt you'll lose your gear upon death in Pantheon, even EQ corpse rotting wasn't that bad. If anything, I would think it will be at worst equal to EQ and not worse.
Comments
So are you going to drop all your stuff on death or have permadeath or something? All the good resources out in the most dangerous PVP areas?
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
Sounds good, but not good enough because:
1. small budget, it is painfully visible in graphics and it will show in other areas as well
2. no mention of how they plan to make good AI (also doubtfully they will cause low budget)
3. Business model not adressed - if it does have microtransactions then I am not interested, if they plan to go P2P only then:
a) How they plan to make it viable long-term?
b) How they plan to succesfully keep 3rd party RMT and cheating in check? (again doubtfully they can because low-budget)
4. Brad McQuaid
Sorry. Words are cheap, but reality of situation is that Pantheon is now just another low-cost indie mmorpg project that build hype on 'old school' and it both does not have funds and solutions in how to fix old school mmorpg problems.
Most of your post makes sense for and applies to most of current MMO players. It does not, however, apply all MMO players. As long as the game is budgeted for a realistic number of players (4 or 5 digits rather than 6 or 7 digits) then all should be well.
The problem with too many MMOs in recent years is that they all chase after player numbers that will never happen. If they can keep investor, media and player expectations grounded in reality I don't see a problem.
Agreed 100% with the OP.
Some time ago i've said the Game Tenets -list should be the first page in the 'MMO designer's manual for immersive and memorable gaming experience', and i still stand behind my words.
This is indeed the game that some are longing for
or at least the type of game. They had a rough start, and issues along the way, but it has settled down now and they are make steady progress. Sure the graphics aren't there just yet, but as gets quoted in many games, "its pre Alpha" and its way better than where they started.
It also blows my mind that people object to a grouping centric games, whats the point of multiplayer if you don't group? The thing this game will do is make classes that compliment each other and create opportunities you just don't see anymore. If grouping is a key element then finding groups won't be the issue it is in modern games where large portions of the community go it alone. Class balance is the only real thing that would hold it back, but having utility classes on top of the proven Trinity adds more flavor than piecemeal arrangements they are trying in newer games.
Last I heard it was targeted at a specific audience and not expected to be the next WoW, but instead to have a sustainable following as a niche game. Given the sheer volume of under populated MMO's these days its seems like a sound strategy not to over budget or try to cater for everyone. The business model I believe was to be sub, again as its a targeted audience.
You can say a lot about Brad, but has anyone else produced anything close to EQ or Vanguard, so whether it happens or not , it is still also what I am "longing for..."
How many times?
How.........many......... times?
Have we heard about the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" while it's still in development?
How many times has the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for" actually released and turned out to not have been the game that "is exactly what I (and others) have been longing for"?
I would suggest we tone it down a little and take a "wait and see" approach. Let's wait and see what actually develops before we call out the next savior of the genre. I can't count how many people were giving that title to EQN only a few months ago.
Kind of a "been there, done that" feel to it. Words are easy to write. Actions are a bit more complex
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
^^ Someone should put this in their signature.
Most gamers will be doing repetitive daily quests while tending to their garrisons. But that's totally OK. Not everyone is looking for the same game experience!
first image I see shows it has more than 4 skills
so it's already better than EQ Next
LMAO
Gaming past. IE => No MMORPG of quality found. (EVE seems to be the only possible exception, and for me, wrong IP)
Gaming now. IE => No MMORPG of quality on the horizon. Oh wait! Pantheon looks good, Shroud of the Avatar another possibility, maybe even Citadel of Sorcery (though I would actually have to look into that one further).
So no idea what you "witnessed", but it must be a very different past and present from what I have witnessed (at the very least).
----
What I "Witnessed" isn't a matter of speculation, it is fact - from my point of view, no quotes necessary. Further, if it "weren't" different from your experiences, or anyone else for that matter? If all gamers saw games in the exact same way, there would only need to be one game.
As for your claim that the past had no MMORPGs of quality, and the future only has two, maybe three, speaks more to my point that it does to yours.
Lastly, if you don't understand what "hardcore" means in this context, better to question it then ridicule it.
Its totally not going to be the savior of the Genre, in fact they are marketing as the opposite, it will appeal to some but not all, as is the niece market target audience. To those that do see it as the game they have been "longing for..." it implies just that, that nothing currently interests them and they look forward to a modernised version of the original games they played. Its definitely not redoing EQ, but taking those positive things that made EQ and VG great and adding some complimentary newer functions that can only improve a game taking it to higher level. Note: not next level, as it will be a better version of what EQ and VG were in there day, not some new direction that EQN is trying.
All of this is optimistic admittedly, but based on what they are trying to achieve, and very much what they are advertising. Same goes with any game, it a wait and see, but hopefully not toooo much waiting in that I hope they meet the proposed timeline.
Never. I can honestly say there hasn't been a game since Vanguard where I was this interested in ALL (as in, every one) of the game tenets and features the way. In fact, not even close. There have been games that have kept their tenets and features vague so as to appeal to a larger audience, but never have a seen a list like this that is so specifically describing the game I want to play.
Uuuuh ...
Games that have definitely been quite a bit better than I expected when I started playing them:
- Baldurs Gate 2 - did expect more of BG1, but BG2 was substantly improved in every way.
- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - It was this game that actually made me a Star Wars fan.
- Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines - Excepted it to be a lot more shallow, but its throughoutly enjoyable, especially once you figured out the combat.
- Vanguard: Saga of Heroes - Just wanted a MMO with classic fantasy and a huge game world, really.
Theres other games that have been about as good as I expected (Like the original Baldurs Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights 2, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion etc) and quite a bit who have been worse (wont list those, obviously, though I will mention Neverwinter Nights 1 which really was just a demo what you can use the editor for).
I am not pointing to individuals here, I am pointing to MMORPG.COM as a whole, and the hype train that runs in an endless loop like a model train.
And as for what you are saying. I understand that, but you must know, that is exactly what is said by someone(s) with every new game's announcement.
I still chuckle when I think about the "GW2 Effect" and the "GW2 Paradigm Shift".
We shall call it HYPEPIERCER! And, as you might expect, it runs off the suffering of children.
I would like to point out that while most of this sounds pretty great, theres some things that I'm not so happy about.
For starters, the downtime line made me go all "WTF ?????". I certainly dont want to be FORCED to social activity THROUGH DOWNTIME. Thats like being forced in D&D to have a Rogue with you, because otherwise you cant handle traps and locks. I always hated that mechanism, as I do hate this one. And I view it as one of the major improvements over EverQuest that nobody in Vanguard had downtime, except of course for the poor solo Warriors.
Also, I didnt liked what they said about faction. Welldone faction is good, but faction can also very easily be made into something completely braindead, as the Vanguard "city factions" proved only too easily. Factions, like everything else, should of course have progression - you should definitely not be WORSE off after you touched them.
Visible loot - thats very sad news. So there is no more searching for the obscure mob that drops the rare ingredient ? Personally thats one of these annoying "uuuh we want more realism in the game, even if it doesnt improve actual gameplay in any way, quite on the contrary" ideas that I despise and that appear on a regular basis in any gamer forum. Yeah I know its realistic that my character has to get a dump and that the character has to sleep and that the character has to eat. Still dont want to do such repetitive stuff. Doesnt give me a sense of realism at all, even less its any fun. Let those Sims player bother with stuff like that.
I also dont like the extra link too much:
Limited number of abilities ? Now that sucks big time for me. That already sucked big time in Guild Wars. I dont feel challenged by being limited to 8 abilities, thank you very much. I hope these limits are pretty high.
I also miss the good old "you get more than just one job" from Vanguard. That was a central reason why the game was so fun, and why Vanguard classes are superior over EverQuest classes. You wouldnt be only a healer that can heal and otherwise do squat. You can and actually HAVE to participate in combat to be the better healer. That was awesome.
I also miss the good old reaction chains. Do we no longer get finishers after a critical hit, or a counter attack after a parry, etc ?
Sadly the combat in Pantheon sounds lot less complex than that of Vanguard. Drat !
Well, if they do that, I'm definitely out.
I prefer item focused MMOs in which you can work days, weeks and even months on your gear. Took me about two years to get my Palladium Armor in my Death Cleric because nobody wanted to do swamp armor !
Games in which you just drop your gear in death and can lose it in a whim arent item focused. That means you can get new gear quickly. Thats not EQ, thats not Vanguard, and theres enough of these kinds of games already out there anyway.
It's the downtime that made the relationships form in EQ and VG. Being able to spam run through dungeon Ques in WoW without having to speak to your group members is one of the many reasons why the community's are destroyed in MMOs.
I've always liked factions, but more in line with KoS factions like EQ launch. Trolls/Ogres being almost KoS in all cities and Humans being liked nearly everywhere. I believe that is currently the idea of factions in Pantheon with faction gains being able to be gained through quests/mob kills.
I don't think this is referring to crafting ingredients, much more in line that you could see the Ghoul Lord wielding a Short Sword of Ykesha, not that it would be carrying the Flame of Ro in it's hand. Visible loot in this regard was a cool thing.
This just depends on your perspective. Being limited to 8 spell gems in original EQ made you have to strategize your encounters and use your spell abilities wisely. I know I was rotating spells in and out often and you could tell good players pretty easily based off their rotation of spells/spell usage. I think it's a good thing, but I could see others wanting every spell available to them.
I highly doubt you'll lose your gear upon death in Pantheon, even EQ corpse rotting wasn't that bad. If anything, I would think it will be at worst equal to EQ and not worse.