Character creation >>> Starting zone, with tutorial >>> Quest 1 >>> Quest 2 >>> Quest 3 (use the cash shop) >>> Quest 4 >>> Quest 5 >>> Que for Dungeon >>> Quest 6 >>> Que for PvP.
This style is cheap to make with less content than ever before. Developers found a neat little trick, stating "this is what players are asking for". How can you argue that ?....Will you invest thousands to prove them wrong ?....They know full well you can't.
This is standard, no deviation from it
Pantheon Rise of the Fallen seems to look past that by using old school. It's been so long since we had a real mmo that you can actually call it NEW SCHOOL !!!!!.......The system worked well, no one complained. Yet developers changed the formula to Quest 1 >>> Quest 2 because it's cheap.
Old School doesn't have to be old, were not talking stick figures and dotted black hallways here like the stigma suggest. This stigma is something that you posters made up !!
It's sad that Brad and his team have to use kick starters as a formula for funding. But this is the only option to keep the greedy investors from taking 80% of the pie. Leaving the game with Quest 1 >>> Quest 2.
Hats off to Brad and Visionary Realms
This has to be some of the most profoundly incorrect information I've ever seen on this site.
WoW style MMOs that fill every inch of map with quests are far more more expensive to make than oldschool EQ1 style content. WoW cost vastly more to make than any of predecessors because of that quest system, not less.
EQ at it's peak had almost half a million subscribers. WoW at it's peak had 24 times that. WoW made more money for it's investors because it had far more subscribers not because it was cheaper to make. People emulated WoW because they wanted to steal millions of subscribers from WoW not because it was cheap to make. SWTOR didn't cost $300 million because the WoW formula is super cheap.
I know this is a hard concept to understand but just because you like something less does not make it cost less to make.
My first instinct would be to jump all over this for " incorrect information" but I'll not, infact your right in a lot of ways......Instead I'll have to back up and say a few things.
For simplicity sake, I would like to make three categories ( yes, I 'm making this up ).
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc )
2) Old School ( eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard, city of hero's )
3) Modern Quest, follow the bread crumbs. ( all the crap that came after warhammer )
#2 Old School is when MMOs became main stream, and where I jumped in around 2004 or so. It's also a time when mmos really took off and became main stream. Old Old School was a little pre-curser. More of a setting the stage for the masses to enjoy.
In my opinion #2 Old School was about perfect. Not crazy hard yet you needed others, Open world, more freedom. It's a style for the masses. It's a time in history that made mmos popular.
#3 Modern Quest is when developers started messing with crap to their liking. Sure they gave the player stories to follow but for a bad price " liner ". Dungeon finders to make life easer, but screwed up the social inter action because of it. They screwed up the backbone of what an mmo is. Liner fast leveling is cheaper too ......More to there liking, cash shops !
I could have included all this in the original post, but how long would it have to be, so it's politically correct for people like you ?......Six pages long to cover everything ?
Since I'm on the subject of 3 categories, let me say this :
Character creation >>> Starting zone, with tutorial >>> Quest 1 >>> Quest 2 >>> Quest 3 (use the cash shop) >>> Quest 4 >>> Quest 5 >>> Que for Dungeon >>> Quest 6 >>> Que for PvP.
This style is cheap to make with less content than ever before. Developers found a neat little trick, stating "this is what players are asking for". How can you argue that ?....Will you invest thousands to prove them wrong ?....They know full well you can't.
This is standard, no deviation from it
Pantheon Rise of the Fallen seems to look past that by using old school. It's been so long since we had a real mmo that you can actually call it NEW SCHOOL !!!!!.......The system worked well, no one complained. Yet developers changed the formula to Quest 1 >>> Quest 2 because it's cheap.
Old School doesn't have to be old, were not talking stick figures and dotted black hallways here like the stigma suggest. This stigma is something that you posters made up !!
It's sad that Brad and his team have to use kick starters as a formula for funding. But this is the only option to keep the greedy investors from taking 80% of the pie. Leaving the game with Quest 1 >>> Quest 2.
Hats off to Brad and Visionary Realms
This has to be some of the most profoundly incorrect information I've ever seen on this site.
WoW style MMOs that fill every inch of map with quests are far more more expensive to make than oldschool EQ1 style content. WoW cost vastly more to make than any of predecessors because of that quest system, not less.
EQ at it's peak had almost half a million subscribers. WoW at it's peak had 24 times that. WoW made more money for it's investors because it had far more subscribers not because it was cheaper to make. People emulated WoW because they wanted to steal millions of subscribers from WoW not because it was cheap to make. SWTOR didn't cost $300 million because the WoW formula is super cheap.
I know this is a hard concept to understand but just because you like something less does not make it cost less to make.
My first instinct would be to jump all over this for " incorrect information" but I'll not, infact your right in a lot of ways......Instead I'll have to back up and say a few things.
For simplicity sake, I would like to make three categories ( yes, I 'm making this up ).
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc )
2) Old School ( eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard, city of hero's )
3) Modern Quest, follow the bread crumbs. ( all the crap that came after warhammer )
#2 Old School is when MMOs became main stream, and where I jumped in around 2004 or so. It's also a time when mmos really took off and became main stream. Old Old School was a little pre-curser. More of a setting the stage for the masses to enjoy.
In my opinion #2 Old School was about perfect. Not crazy hard yet you needed others, Open world, more freedom. It's a style for the masses. It's a time in history that made mmos popular.
#3 Modern Quest is when developers started messing with crap to their liking. Sure they gave the player stories to follow but for a bad price " liner ". Dungeon finders to make life easer, but screwed up the social inter action because of it. They screwed up the backbone of what an mmo is. Liner fast leveling is cheaper too ......More to there liking, cash shops !
I could have included all this in the original post, but how long would it have to be, so it's politically correct for people like you ?......Six pages long to cover everything ?
Since I'm on the subject of 3 categories, let me say this :
Modern Quest is like a lunch made up of just potato chips and soda, very cheap and unfulfilling ( category #3 ).
Old School is perfect ( category #2 ) always had been. Category 1&3 people will embrace it, even if they don't know it yet
It's like we went from horses to cars, then back to horses. Pentheon will bring back the car.
Ah, then I completely misread your OP. When people say old school I immediately think they're referring to EQ1 when in this case you had vanilla WoW in mind, sorry for the misunderstanding.
My first instinct would be to jump all over this for " incorrect information" but I'll not, infact your right in a lot of ways......Instead I'll have to back up and say a few things.
For simplicity sake, I would like to make three categories ( yes, I 'm making this up ).
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc )
2) Old School ( eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard, city of hero's )
3) Modern Quest, follow the bread crumbs. ( all the crap that came after warhammer )
#2 Old School is when MMOs became main stream, and where I jumped in around 2004 or so. It's also a time when mmos really took off and became main stream. Old Old School was a little pre-curser. More of a setting the stage for the masses to enjoy.
In my opinion #2 Old School was about perfect. Not crazy hard yet you needed others, Open world, more freedom. It's a style for the masses. It's a time in history that made mmos popular.
#3 Modern Quest is when developers started messing with crap to their liking. Sure they gave the player stories to follow but for a bad price " liner ". Dungeon finders to make life easer, but screwed up the social inter action because of it. They screwed up the backbone of what an mmo is. Liner fast leveling is cheaper too ......More to there liking, cash shops !
I could have included all this in the original post, but how long would it have to be, so it's politically correct for people like you ?......Six pages long to cover everything ?
Since I'm on the subject of 3 categories, let me say this :
Modern Quest is like a lunch made up of just potato chips and soda, very cheap and unfulfilling ( category #3 ).
Old School is perfect ( category #2 ) always had been. Category 1&3 people will embrace it, even if they don't know it yet
It's like we went from horses to cars, then back to horses. Pentheon will bring back the car.
Edit:
I am going to try this again with a different approach.
You say this:
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc ) ... Old Old school is just too old ( category #1 ).
Can you identify the mechanics and features of your termed "Old Old School" that are "too old"?
Maybe list several of them so we can get an idea as to what you claim is antiquated, outdated, "too old"? I mean no offense, but your "old school" is what many of us term as the beginning of the decline of MMOs, ie your statement of "Old School is when MMOs became main stream", which is exactly the point.
My first instinct would be to jump all over this for " incorrect information" but I'll not, infact your right in a lot of ways......Instead I'll have to back up and say a few things.
For simplicity sake, I would like to make three categories ( yes, I 'm making this up ).
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc )
2) Old School ( eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard, city of hero's )
3) Modern Quest, follow the bread crumbs. ( all the crap that came after warhammer )
#2 Old School is when MMOs became main stream, and where I jumped in around 2004 or so. It's also a time when mmos really took off and became main stream. Old Old School was a little pre-curser. More of a setting the stage for the masses to enjoy.
In my opinion #2 Old School was about perfect. Not crazy hard yet you needed others, Open world, more freedom. It's a style for the masses. It's a time in history that made mmos popular.
#3 Modern Quest is when developers started messing with crap to their liking. Sure they gave the player stories to follow but for a bad price " liner ". Dungeon finders to make life easer, but screwed up the social inter action because of it. They screwed up the backbone of what an mmo is. Liner fast leveling is cheaper too ......More to there liking, cash shops !
I could have included all this in the original post, but how long would it have to be, so it's politically correct for people like you ?......Six pages long to cover everything ?
Since I'm on the subject of 3 categories, let me say this :
Modern Quest is like a lunch made up of just potato chips and soda, very cheap and unfulfilling ( category #3 ).
Old School is perfect ( category #2 ) always had been. Category 1&3 people will embrace it, even if they don't know it yet
It's like we went from horses to cars, then back to horses. Pentheon will bring back the car.
Edit:
I am going to try this again with a different approach.
You say this:
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc ) ... Old Old school is just too old ( category #1 ).
Can you identify the mechanics and features of your termed "Old Old School" that are "too old"?
Maybe list several of them so we can get an idea as to what you claim is antiquated, outdated, "too old"? I mean no offense, but your "old school" is what many of us term as the beginning of the decline of MMOs, ie your statement of "Old School is when MMOs became main stream", which is exactly the point.
Sure I have a little time before work,
Let me start by saying, I found mmos around 2004, so I don't have the full history of experience.
Many say that " your first love is always the best ". That saying seems to hold for me, so Icould be somewhat biased, I'll put that on the table so no one thinks I'm hiding anything. So yes, my first love's were in the old school category ( WoW, Everquest 2, D&D Online, Vanguard ).
However, I'm being open-minded as much as possible and as any post,it's all opinions.
The masses would like some direction, what's nice about second generation is its all optional, It was still do as you feel. No hand holding but pick and chose content given by developers, but NEVER CARROT ON A STICK.
Carrot on a stick ( modern mmos ), has no place in mmos. Now your thinking, who the hell is this guy making such bold statements ?........Well your right !.......No one has the right to define mmos. MMO is a broad definition.........BUT deep down inside you and I both know it's about community. Doing quest together, making friends, Picking a team for dungeons and raids. Modern mmos of following a strict path is just a video game.
Just a video game holds players attention for about 30 days. If you like the video game maybe 60. But an mmo with community, mmo players will stick around because they get immersed in the world. Now the world would have to be larger too. Modern video game mmos lack large too. its obvious that many like this style. No problem but there not mmos. Lots of arguments here over the definition, and that's because developers never separated the word mmo, so we have to fight it out.
So it's my opinion that we have three styles. I think many could agree with that. It's also my opinion that 2004 style mmos would be best for mass appeal, with some direction but not forced.
Let me start by saying, I found mmos around 2004, so I don't have the full history of experience.
And that's why your views are skewed of what MMOs can be if designed around player created content and not publisher created content.
UO, EQ and SWG were all grand examples of that you don't need a 200 quest line leading you by your nose from level 1 to max to create a successful MMO where you can actually feel like you're living in a virtual world. Sadly, since WoW came we have not seen a single attempt at a large budget sandbox MMO with both PvP and PvE players both having enough tools to create their own content. We've got dozens of half-assed attempts that have either lacked budget, been focused only to PvP, or both. EVE online is an exception, but not everyone wants to play a spaceship.
I still believe there would be a huge chance for a big-budget developer to create a sandbox MMO with good PvE and PvP elements. Seamless world with large safe and unsafe areas, non-instanced player housing, open world PvP (in non-safe areas) with an option to go consensual PvP anywhere via duels and mutual guild war invitations, lots of side-activities, as free as possible character customization, etc. The recipe is there, but no big publisher is willing to cook it because "it's not like WoW".
Let me start by saying, I found mmos around 2004, so I don't have the full history of experience.
Many say that " your first love is always the best ". That saying seems to hold for me, so Icould be somewhat biased, I'll put that on the table so no one thinks I'm hiding anything. So yes, my first love's were in the old school category ( WoW, Everquest 2, D&D Online, Vanguard ).
However, I'm being open-minded as much as possible and as any post,it's all opinions.
The masses would like some direction, what's nice about second generation is its all optional, It was still do as you feel. No hand holding but pick and chose content given by developers, but NEVER CARROT ON A STICK.
Carrot on a stick ( modern mmos ), has no place in mmos. Now your thinking, who the hell is this guy making such bold statements ?........Well your right !.......No one has the right to define mmos. MMO is a broad definition.........BUT deep down inside you and I both know it's about community. Doing quest together, making friends, Picking a team for dungeons and raids. Modern mmos of following a strict path is just a video game.
Just a video game holds players attention for about 30 days. If you like the video game maybe 60. But an mmo with community, mmo players will stick around because they get immersed in the world. Now the world would have to be larger too. Modern video game mmos lack large too. its obvious that many like this style. No problem but there not mmos. Lots of arguments here over the definition, and that's because developers never separated the word mmo, so we have to fight it out.
So it's my opinion that we have three styles. I think many could agree with that. It's also my opinion that 2004 style mmos would be best for mass appeal, with some direction but not forced.
Time to go to work.
This game isn't being made for the masses, it is actually specifically being designed for a niche audience in the spirit of EQ/VG (ie taking what made those games different from games today) while applying some new ideas and lessons learned in MMOs over the years.
So, when you look at what this game is trying to achieve, you need to look to EQ and VG to what they are working to (Brads "Vision(tm)" theme). While it won't be a replica of those games, or a true sequel, it will contain many features and directions that were present in those games. So if you are looking for a completely different focus and drastic new directions, or... more mainstream style implementation, you are likely to be disappointed.
That is not to say that you will not enjoy this game. I would encourage you to give it an honest try, especially since you never had the pleasure of experiencing a game like EQ in its original form. I think you may find many of its features are worthy of the praise so many older players give it.
Many say that " your first love is always the best ".
Meh.
My first MMO was Lineage 2, and I have little love for that one.
I still like the idea of castle sieges and overenchantment, though I would modify both ideas if I reimplemented them in an own game. Like, you should be able to build your own nations, not limited to a fixed set, and overenchantment should add new abilities to your item and be part of a complex crafting system.
I also like the idea to make classes different if you have a different race. Race should be an important choice that impacts your gameplay. However I dont like the idea that depending upon your race you cannot select certain classes.
Thats basically all from L2 that I still like.
Vanguard, on the other hand, was a whole different matter. In status its close to Baldurs Gate 2, my favorite game of all times.
Comments
My first instinct would be to jump all over this for " incorrect information" but I'll not, infact your right in a lot of ways......Instead I'll have to back up and say a few things.
For simplicity sake, I would like to make three categories ( yes, I 'm making this up ).
1) Old Old School ( eq1, ff11, daoc )
2) Old School ( eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard, city of hero's )
3) Modern Quest, follow the bread crumbs. ( all the crap that came after warhammer )
#2 Old School is when MMOs became main stream, and where I jumped in around 2004 or so. It's also a time when mmos really took off and became main stream. Old Old School was a little pre-curser. More of a setting the stage for the masses to enjoy.
In my opinion #2 Old School was about perfect. Not crazy hard yet you needed others, Open world, more freedom. It's a style for the masses. It's a time in history that made mmos popular.
#3 Modern Quest is when developers started messing with crap to their liking. Sure they gave the player stories to follow but for a bad price " liner ". Dungeon finders to make life easer, but screwed up the social inter action because of it. They screwed up the backbone of what an mmo is. Liner fast leveling is cheaper too ......More to there liking, cash shops !
I could have included all this in the original post, but how long would it have to be, so it's politically correct for people like you ?......Six pages long to cover everything ?
Since I'm on the subject of 3 categories, let me say this :
Old Old school is just too old ( category #1 ).
Modern Quest is like a lunch made up of just potato chips and soda, very cheap and unfulfilling ( category #3 ).
Old School is perfect ( category #2 ) always had been. Category 1&3 people will embrace it, even if they don't know it yet
It's like we went from horses to cars, then back to horses. Pentheon will bring back the car.
Edit:
I am going to try this again with a different approach.
You say this:
Can you identify the mechanics and features of your termed "Old Old School" that are "too old"?
Maybe list several of them so we can get an idea as to what you claim is antiquated, outdated, "too old"? I mean no offense, but your "old school" is what many of us term as the beginning of the decline of MMOs, ie your statement of "Old School is when MMOs became main stream", which is exactly the point.
Sure I have a little time before work,
Let me start by saying, I found mmos around 2004, so I don't have the full history of experience.
Many say that " your first love is always the best ". That saying seems to hold for me, so Icould be somewhat biased, I'll put that on the table so no one thinks I'm hiding anything. So yes, my first love's were in the old school category ( WoW, Everquest 2, D&D Online, Vanguard ).
However, I'm being open-minded as much as possible and as any post,it's all opinions.
The masses would like some direction, what's nice about second generation is its all optional, It was still do as you feel. No hand holding but pick and chose content given by developers, but NEVER CARROT ON A STICK.
Carrot on a stick ( modern mmos ), has no place in mmos. Now your thinking, who the hell is this guy making such bold statements ?........Well your right !.......No one has the right to define mmos. MMO is a broad definition.........BUT deep down inside you and I both know it's about community. Doing quest together, making friends, Picking a team for dungeons and raids. Modern mmos of following a strict path is just a video game.
Just a video game holds players attention for about 30 days. If you like the video game maybe 60. But an mmo with community, mmo players will stick around because they get immersed in the world. Now the world would have to be larger too. Modern video game mmos lack large too. its obvious that many like this style. No problem but there not mmos. Lots of arguments here over the definition, and that's because developers never separated the word mmo, so we have to fight it out.
So it's my opinion that we have three styles. I think many could agree with that. It's also my opinion that 2004 style mmos would be best for mass appeal, with some direction but not forced.
Time to go to work.
UO, EQ and SWG were all grand examples of that you don't need a 200 quest line leading you by your nose from level 1 to max to create a successful MMO where you can actually feel like you're living in a virtual world. Sadly, since WoW came we have not seen a single attempt at a large budget sandbox MMO with both PvP and PvE players both having enough tools to create their own content. We've got dozens of half-assed attempts that have either lacked budget, been focused only to PvP, or both. EVE online is an exception, but not everyone wants to play a spaceship.
I still believe there would be a huge chance for a big-budget developer to create a sandbox MMO with good PvE and PvP elements. Seamless world with large safe and unsafe areas, non-instanced player housing, open world PvP (in non-safe areas) with an option to go consensual PvP anywhere via duels and mutual guild war invitations, lots of side-activities, as free as possible character customization, etc. The recipe is there, but no big publisher is willing to cook it because "it's not like WoW".
This may explain a bit more:
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/pantheon_difference/
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/game_features/
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/faqs/
So, when you look at what this game is trying to achieve, you need to look to EQ and VG to what they are working to (Brads "Vision(tm)" theme). While it won't be a replica of those games, or a true sequel, it will contain many features and directions that were present in those games. So if you are looking for a completely different focus and drastic new directions, or... more mainstream style implementation, you are likely to be disappointed.
That is not to say that you will not enjoy this game. I would encourage you to give it an honest try, especially since you never had the pleasure of experiencing a game like EQ in its original form. I think you may find many of its features are worthy of the praise so many older players give it.
My first MMO was Lineage 2, and I have little love for that one.
I still like the idea of castle sieges and overenchantment, though I would modify both ideas if I reimplemented them in an own game. Like, you should be able to build your own nations, not limited to a fixed set, and overenchantment should add new abilities to your item and be part of a complex crafting system.
I also like the idea to make classes different if you have a different race. Race should be an important choice that impacts your gameplay. However I dont like the idea that depending upon your race you cannot select certain classes.
Thats basically all from L2 that I still like.
Vanguard, on the other hand, was a whole different matter. In status its close to Baldurs Gate 2, my favorite game of all times.