It's tough to avoid nostalgia when it comes to old things.
We often forget what sucked, what was limiting, what we didn't like and wash that out with a big cup of nostalgic tea.
As someone who played EQ after Asheron's Call (AC being my first MMO and my honeymoon) I really didn't care that much for it and quickly returned to AC before eventually moving onto Dark Age.
This to me says two things:
- For most, EQ was their first.
- MMOs were so limited back then, there was a lot more imagination that had to go on. Just the same way I have fond memories of playing a MUD, it would not be something I could return to.
As a side note to the imagination factor, it was also quite novel playing with others. It was new and exciting, I couldn't wait to meet other people on my journeys. These days.. I go out of my way to avoid people and get annoyed when I have to mob share. People are nothing more than pixels on a screen to me. Sometimes I can barely tell the difference between a player and an NPC.
I don't think you'll ever recapture that imagination factor or that desire for social interaction; no matter how hard you try.
Does that mean EQN can't be successful in its own right? Of course not.
It's just.. well, like an old film getting remade, it will never capture the original glory.
See, i get really tired of the nostalgia/rose colored glasses argument. While there is some merit to it in many situations. This is not one of them.
Earlier this year i decided to go play on a server which we're not allowed to discuss here, but it approximates early EQ very well. Now, obviously people played it like they do modern MMOs, so there are wikis telling you spawn rates and drop rates and this and that. But, i played it for several months, and it was just as awesome and fun of an experience as my first time around.
Yes, the sense of wonderment wasnt there. That part was gone. But the mechanics of the game (not all of them, mind you) still held up just fine. There was still a great sense of community, the world felt like a world, etc.
Another example since you point out movies ill give is 2.
Alien, Die Hard. Both of these movies hold up extremely well. If you go and watch either of them they're still just as awesome as they ever were. Whereas something like Independence Day aged very badly. So, the point here is it really depends on the product.
IMO EQ is not an example of rose colored glasses.
The point of my post is that times were different than they are now. It was not "this game doesn't work in the modern age" or "this movie doesn't work in the modern age" - it was clearly stated that recreating said game or movie in the modern age is an impossible task due to the shift in times.
To use your examples: Prometheus didn't hold a candle to the original Ridley Scott films and any Die Hard 4 and 5 have been well.. not great.
As such the nostalgia factor was just illustrating the overall point that 1) we look back fondly on things and 2) trying to recapture something from the past never works on all communities and it's best to create a new, great experience.
I'm thrilled that you have intense nostalgia for the game and can still find enjoyment for it today - the same would not be true for the majority of 10-20 year old people, hence, nostalgia.
I absolutely love the Ernest films, old Looney Tunes, Peanuts and hey even Rugrats. You try giving any of those to my niece and watch how fast it gets turned off.
SoE have intimated more than a few times that EQN will not be like EQ, I think we all know that now, if you want to play EQ do like I do, play EQ, been playing it for nearly 15 years now on and off.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
EverQuest had more than a few features to set it apart even today. While it's obvious that EQN has many more "new" features what at its core does it need to capture the feeling of its predecessors? Is it possible to create an experience both vets of the original franchise and new players to the genre can enjoy along with those all along the spectrum?
What made EverQuest, EverQuest?
At it's core, it was community. What facilitated community though?
Interdependence (group based play, the need for reputation), slower non action orientated play, shared spaces, and a focus on PvE would be my answer in the main.
Now, it's clear that EQN won't be a 'slow' game... It won't be the measured precision of classic EQ. It will, I think, be closer to the AoE attack/ CC model of CoH. This on it's own won't be a game killer though- CoH still had a great feel to it's play speed and had a great community.
So... Interdependence, group play, and reputation... They need to nail this most of all. If they make this game an enforced solo grinder then this has the potentiol to sink it. There is a delicate balance to be found in freeing folks up to do as they feel, and encouraging them to invest into a wider community. Pretty much every game has failed to find this, it's a true holy grail. Recognising that players interconnecting and playing together from the early levels is a great thing is essential though.
Shared spaces (open dungeons with contested bosses etc) are also essential. If there is a problem with a contested spawn or named, let the players communicate and deal with it. We don't need controlled instances and 1576565 sub systems to tell us how to interact and control our behaviours.
Don't be scared of making people unhappy or frustrated. We need lows to appreciate the highs, or it all just becomes a mediocre gloop of meh. If there is no losing, there can be no winning and we all just get a reward for showing up (because we are all special little snowflakes, right?)
So, yeah, this won't be classic EQ. That's fine though, it doesn't have to be. What they do need to learn is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a stupid thing to do. Take the recent 'playing alongside, not with, each other' philosophy that has resulted in things like GW2's soulless dynamic events... These approaches do nothing to build community.
They don't need to look at what made EQ so good combat systems wise, they need to look at what it so good community wise.
The community, good and bad, made the game. Raiding took hours and hours, so did keying and grinding AA's but the combat was not twitchy. You were meant to enjoy the company of those in your group and/or raid, and there was time to type and chat with the other people.
Entering a dungeon didnt mean, using a UI addon to randomly select people you'd never meet again to do something in 25 mins worth of time, - no it meant asking in the /ooc chat for people wanting to group, and off you'd go. For hours, in the same spot, only moving if another better camp opened up.
Try to imagine sharing huge dungeons with everyone happening by. Without any instance nonsense and having it work.
Thats what made EQ. You had a community, and consequences for your actions. If you were an a-hole noone would group with you, and you couldnt solo much unless you played a necro or some kiting wizard and even then it was hard because of summoning mechanics on mobs. But because you needed other people, and because you had time to get to know them in groups, due to the nature of combat in the game, it was not an issue that dungeons were not instanced. It was part of the fun. It was competitive but without the a-hole factor, most of the time. - Sure you'd have people train your camp, but the group would recover. It was part of the excitement as well. Actions had consequences. There was real danger - and risk in pve.
But the most important part was the multiplayer aspect. The UI was not meant to handle your interactions with the social part of the game for you. It would not automatically find a group, or enter you into a Q for one. It would not initiate a vote to kick a player, or help you sort out loot.
All of those things the game required you had the capacity to handle with the other people in your group/raid. And it made the game. It made the community, it game the game massive retention rates on subscribers, and it meant the social aspect was not relegated to just that within your own guild as it does now to the detriment of most mmo's.
It also taught young people accountability. In that they learned how to play with others nicely, or suffer the consequences. Some of the socially challenged formed guilds together and became the scourge of the servers they were on, but they were never more than entertainment for the rest of us. Sure you might get inconveniences by their behaviour, as you should be, but you had the tools to deal with them by denying them pve oppertunities outside their guilds. MMO's really shut themselves in the foot when they instanced everything and swapped the social parts for more UI functionality as well as cross server lfg's. I pity all of those mmo players who never saw what came before.
It does not sound like there is much eq and eqnext share, excepta few things.
Both are not themepark but more virtual worlds. Eqnext will hopefully take the concept of living breathing world to the next level with a true/truer dynamic mechanic.
Class or rather roles support eacother, and hopefully eqnext multitude of roles will allow for as many interesting fighting tactics as eq had. We really need better combat systems than the current generic action spam.. Vanguard was on the right track and I got a little feeling eqnext will take that direction. But untill we actually tried combat, it could be just hot air from soe.
Eqnext does sound to have more in common with gw2, but they replace the flawed stuff, that might not be so bad. And so all is just speculation, hands on will tell what was true and what was marketing blahblah.
It does not sound like there is much eq and eqnext share, excepta few things.
Both are not themepark but more virtual worlds. Eqnext will hopefully take the concept of living breathing world to the next level with a true/truer dynamic mechanic. This has yet to be seen.. I'm sure there are loads of info and limitations not yet disclosed about the AI..
Class or rather roles support eacother, and hopefully eqnext multitude of roles will allow for as many interesting fighting tactics as eq had. I don't see that happening with what we have been shown so far.. Without auto targeting you LOSE many roles and skills such as single target heals and rez's in battle.. You can not rely on a true healer to toss the tank a "complete heal" while fighting.. Heals will have to be in the form of what GW2 does (AOE effects) such as bubbles or pools.. We really need better combat systems than the current generic action spam.. Vanguard was on the right track and I got a little feeling eqnext will take that direction. But untill we actually tried combat, it could be just hot air from soe.Playing bouncing bunny spamming a couple buttons with twitch skills isn't my cup of tea either.. I never cared for the games that allowed for UI mods that gave players the access to their 100 skills on 4 lines of hotkeys, but I know that what GW2 and EQN have done isn't an improvement.. ( IMO ) .. I liked the original EQ method of having a pool of skills/spells and you can ONLY memorize/access a limited number of them.. 8 or 10 is a good number.. Nothing more, Nothing less..
Eqnext does sound to have more in common with gw2, but they replace the flawed stuff, that might not be so bad. And so all is just speculation, hands on will tell what was true and what was marketing blahblah.
True.. I do think EQN is going to play a lot more like GW2.. The combat is going to be zergy.. I have not seen anything that disproves that.. If 1 person can solo a small group of mobs, then what do you think happens when a group of players get together? Strategy goes out the window and it becomes a zerg farm.. Oh sure that group can move into a more dangerous area that challenges them, but then they hook up with another group, and again. = ZERG.. Anytime players can unite that allows them to blitz and zerg through mobs like a hot knife through butter, they will..
But like I said before.. We have seen nothing of what combat AI will be like.. Lets wait for the REAL game play of 4 players vs. 4+ mobs and see how that fight evolves.. I know where my bet is going.. lol
Originally posted by Rydeson But Aelious, lets be honest here a least.. The EverQuest name is ONLY being used as a marketing grab to generate interest from an preexisting game.. Pure and Simple.. Take away the self imposed sharing of names, there are no similarities at all between the two games.. Combat is different, Classes, Character development.. etc etc.. EQN is as close to EQ, as Leave it to Beaver is to Star Trek.. In all honestly, EQN should of just been given a whole new name and lore.. But then would people have followed it and supported it without the EQ title? hmmmm
You've said you quite a long time back, EQ died for me in 2003 I think. Do you consider EQ today to still be EQ? Because while it may still share a lot of the core elements, it is pretty much an entirely different game. Yet there are people that have been playing for 15+ years and I consider them real EQ fans. In with the good and bad, not simply one ideal version from years ago.
EQ is a huge franchise for SOE, they would be stupid to not utilize it either for all us nostalgia people or at least people that know of EQ in some vague way. Could they have made an entirely new IP? Sure, but I think people would still be complaining about "Where's EQ3, why'd they go with XYZ IP instead." To me, EQN is basically a new franchise looking at all the work they are putting into it. While keeping a ton of EQ ideas/names to not make it too far gone and still keep some of us interested. As seen by all the love/hate, it is working. I'm betting even those claiming they will never try it, will.
Even without the EQ title attached, game still looks more interesting then anything else out currently or coming. From a tech point of view. If it was Warhammer, Warcraft, Star Wars, or insert random new bland IP with the same Voxels/Storybricks and what not, I'd still be interested. It's a plus that it is the IP that brought me into this genre.
When it comes closer to release, I'm sure they'll advertise as "From the company that started it all with the best MMORPG of all time EQ....we bring you EQN" but realistically who is really going to care that much? How many fans/vets of EQ make up the total gaming population that SOE is targeting?
When I see EQN, I see EQ. Just as the new Star Wars Rebels is Star Wars to me. Some of us seem to like a wider variety of products based on an original that we hold dearly.
True.. I do think EQN is going to play a lot more like GW2.. The combat is going to be zergy.. I have not seen anything that disproves that.. If 1 person can solo a small group of mobs, then what do you think happens when a group of players get together? Strategy goes out the window and it becomes a zerg farm.. Oh sure that group can move into a more dangerous area that challenges them, but then they hook up with another group, and again. = ZERG.. Anytime players can unite that allows them to blitz and zerg through mobs like a hot knife through butter, they will..
But like I said before.. We have seen nothing of what combat AI will be like.. Lets wait for the REAL game play of 4 players vs. 4+ mobs and see how that fight evolves.. I know where my bet is going.. lol
1. Consequences. If a player played like an idiot (say zerging like in some of these WOW clones), they felt the pain.
2. Freedom to explore. No compulsion to follow some breadcrumb trail or to be a slave to a quest hub.
3. Interdependency with other players. Sure, you could go it alone, but it was safer in groups, as it should be.
4. Downtime. This is where folks who grouped would start to talk and form bonds of camaraderie.
5. A world. Norrath was set up with cultural cities and zones and other places. Rarely did you go through a city zone once; there were always reasons to come back. It was a shared community environment.
True.. I do think EQN is going to play a lot more like GW2.. The combat is going to be zergy.. I have not seen anything that disproves that.. If 1 person can solo a small group of mobs, then what do you think happens when a group of players get together? Strategy goes out the window and it becomes a zerg farm.. Oh sure that group can move into a more dangerous area that challenges them, but then they hook up with another group, and again. = ZERG.. Anytime players can unite that allows them to blitz and zerg through mobs like a hot knife through butter, they will..
But like I said before.. We have seen nothing of what combat AI will be like.. Lets wait for the REAL game play of 4 players vs. 4+ mobs and see how that fight evolves.. I know where my bet is going.. lol
Why didn't people zerg in EQ?
Why won't those reasons hold true in EQN?
Did you even play EQ? I question whether you did if you even have to ask those questions.
1. Consequences. If a player played like an idiot (say zerging like in some of these WOW clones), they felt the pain.
2. Freedom to explore. No compulsion to follow some breadcrumb trail or to be a slave to a quest hub.
3. Interdependency with other players. Sure, you could go it alone, but it was safer in groups, as it should be.
4. Downtime. This is where folks who grouped would start to talk and form bonds of camaraderie.
5. A world. Norrath was set up with cultural cities and zones and other places. Rarely did you go through a city zone once; there were always reasons to come back. It was a shared community environment.
YES! exactly this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ditto.. ^^^^^^^^^^
I miss being part of a community even when I'm not fighting ALL the damn time.. I loved taking time off from XP grinding to play Mr Taxi , or Mr Banker, and many times I just buffed newbies for mats I used in crafting (food and drink).. Games today are almost pure shoot em up arcade.. Whereas games of the past allowed for non combat activities and roles that built a reputation and community..
True.. I do think EQN is going to play a lot more like GW2.. The combat is going to be zergy.. I have not seen anything that disproves that.. If 1 person can solo a small group of mobs, then what do you think happens when a group of players get together? Strategy goes out the window and it becomes a zerg farm.. Oh sure that group can move into a more dangerous area that challenges them, but then they hook up with another group, and again. = ZERG.. Anytime players can unite that allows them to blitz and zerg through mobs like a hot knife through butter, they will..
But like I said before.. We have seen nothing of what combat AI will be like.. Lets wait for the REAL game play of 4 players vs. 4+ mobs and see how that fight evolves.. I know where my bet is going.. lol
Why didn't people zerg in EQ?
Why won't those reasons hold true in EQN?
Did you even play EQ? I question whether you did if you even have to ask those questions.
I did for the first 4-5 years or so. Just curious where this idea that EQN has to follow GW2's very poor PVE mechanics and overall design instead of going with EQ, EQ2, or any number of game's mechanics. Or crazy thought, doing something new that combats zerging and soloing as being the only options for playing.
Simply pointing out the poor logic of "zerging will happen because lots of people will join each other." Plenty of games where this wasn't the case and for good reason.
Besides that, the devs have alluded to content where massive battles take place (LOTR movie style). I'd much rather players needing to form up in groups of 50-100, then 5 being able to PUG a mob zerg of 250 Orcs. Again an example of us not knowing the full context but some assuming the worst and some hoping for the best. Damn SOE and their secrets!
Feel free to answer my questions though if you some how can put the logic together of why EQ didn't have zerging (at least when I played it) and why GW2 does. And then why EQN would follow GW2's style which has been so praised for being the best PVE experience ever.
Comments
The point of my post is that times were different than they are now. It was not "this game doesn't work in the modern age" or "this movie doesn't work in the modern age" - it was clearly stated that recreating said game or movie in the modern age is an impossible task due to the shift in times.
To use your examples: Prometheus didn't hold a candle to the original Ridley Scott films and any Die Hard 4 and 5 have been well.. not great.
As such the nostalgia factor was just illustrating the overall point that 1) we look back fondly on things and 2) trying to recapture something from the past never works on all communities and it's best to create a new, great experience.
I'm thrilled that you have intense nostalgia for the game and can still find enjoyment for it today - the same would not be true for the majority of 10-20 year old people, hence, nostalgia.
I absolutely love the Ernest films, old Looney Tunes, Peanuts and hey even Rugrats. You try giving any of those to my niece and watch how fast it gets turned off.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
At it's core, it was community. What facilitated community though?
Interdependence (group based play, the need for reputation), slower non action orientated play, shared spaces, and a focus on PvE would be my answer in the main.
Now, it's clear that EQN won't be a 'slow' game... It won't be the measured precision of classic EQ. It will, I think, be closer to the AoE attack/ CC model of CoH. This on it's own won't be a game killer though- CoH still had a great feel to it's play speed and had a great community.
So... Interdependence, group play, and reputation... They need to nail this most of all. If they make this game an enforced solo grinder then this has the potentiol to sink it. There is a delicate balance to be found in freeing folks up to do as they feel, and encouraging them to invest into a wider community. Pretty much every game has failed to find this, it's a true holy grail. Recognising that players interconnecting and playing together from the early levels is a great thing is essential though.
Shared spaces (open dungeons with contested bosses etc) are also essential. If there is a problem with a contested spawn or named, let the players communicate and deal with it. We don't need controlled instances and 1576565 sub systems to tell us how to interact and control our behaviours.
Don't be scared of making people unhappy or frustrated. We need lows to appreciate the highs, or it all just becomes a mediocre gloop of meh. If there is no losing, there can be no winning and we all just get a reward for showing up (because we are all special little snowflakes, right?)
So, yeah, this won't be classic EQ. That's fine though, it doesn't have to be. What they do need to learn is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a stupid thing to do. Take the recent 'playing alongside, not with, each other' philosophy that has resulted in things like GW2's soulless dynamic events... These approaches do nothing to build community.
They don't need to look at what made EQ so good combat systems wise, they need to look at what it so good community wise.
The community, good and bad, made the game. Raiding took hours and hours, so did keying and grinding AA's but the combat was not twitchy. You were meant to enjoy the company of those in your group and/or raid, and there was time to type and chat with the other people.
Entering a dungeon didnt mean, using a UI addon to randomly select people you'd never meet again to do something in 25 mins worth of time, - no it meant asking in the /ooc chat for people wanting to group, and off you'd go. For hours, in the same spot, only moving if another better camp opened up.
Try to imagine sharing huge dungeons with everyone happening by. Without any instance nonsense and having it work.
Thats what made EQ. You had a community, and consequences for your actions. If you were an a-hole noone would group with you, and you couldnt solo much unless you played a necro or some kiting wizard and even then it was hard because of summoning mechanics on mobs. But because you needed other people, and because you had time to get to know them in groups, due to the nature of combat in the game, it was not an issue that dungeons were not instanced. It was part of the fun. It was competitive but without the a-hole factor, most of the time. - Sure you'd have people train your camp, but the group would recover. It was part of the excitement as well. Actions had consequences. There was real danger - and risk in pve.
But the most important part was the multiplayer aspect. The UI was not meant to handle your interactions with the social part of the game for you. It would not automatically find a group, or enter you into a Q for one. It would not initiate a vote to kick a player, or help you sort out loot.
All of those things the game required you had the capacity to handle with the other people in your group/raid. And it made the game. It made the community, it game the game massive retention rates on subscribers, and it meant the social aspect was not relegated to just that within your own guild as it does now to the detriment of most mmo's.
It also taught young people accountability. In that they learned how to play with others nicely, or suffer the consequences. Some of the socially challenged formed guilds together and became the scourge of the servers they were on, but they were never more than entertainment for the rest of us. Sure you might get inconveniences by their behaviour, as you should be, but you had the tools to deal with them by denying them pve oppertunities outside their guilds. MMO's really shut themselves in the foot when they instanced everything and swapped the social parts for more UI functionality as well as cross server lfg's. I pity all of those mmo players who never saw what came before.
It does not sound like there is much eq and eqnext share, excepta few things.
Both are not themepark but more virtual worlds. Eqnext will hopefully take the concept of living breathing world to the next level with a true/truer dynamic mechanic.
Class or rather roles support eacother, and hopefully eqnext multitude of roles will allow for as many interesting fighting tactics as eq had. We really need better combat systems than the current generic action spam.. Vanguard was on the right track and I got a little feeling eqnext will take that direction. But untill we actually tried combat, it could be just hot air from soe.
Eqnext does sound to have more in common with gw2, but they replace the flawed stuff, that might not be so bad. And so all is just speculation, hands on will tell what was true and what was marketing blahblah.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
True.. I do think EQN is going to play a lot more like GW2.. The combat is going to be zergy.. I have not seen anything that disproves that.. If 1 person can solo a small group of mobs, then what do you think happens when a group of players get together? Strategy goes out the window and it becomes a zerg farm.. Oh sure that group can move into a more dangerous area that challenges them, but then they hook up with another group, and again. = ZERG.. Anytime players can unite that allows them to blitz and zerg through mobs like a hot knife through butter, they will..
But like I said before.. We have seen nothing of what combat AI will be like.. Lets wait for the REAL game play of 4 players vs. 4+ mobs and see how that fight evolves.. I know where my bet is going.. lol
You've said you quite a long time back, EQ died for me in 2003 I think. Do you consider EQ today to still be EQ? Because while it may still share a lot of the core elements, it is pretty much an entirely different game. Yet there are people that have been playing for 15+ years and I consider them real EQ fans. In with the good and bad, not simply one ideal version from years ago.
EQ is a huge franchise for SOE, they would be stupid to not utilize it either for all us nostalgia people or at least people that know of EQ in some vague way. Could they have made an entirely new IP? Sure, but I think people would still be complaining about "Where's EQ3, why'd they go with XYZ IP instead." To me, EQN is basically a new franchise looking at all the work they are putting into it. While keeping a ton of EQ ideas/names to not make it too far gone and still keep some of us interested. As seen by all the love/hate, it is working. I'm betting even those claiming they will never try it, will.
Even without the EQ title attached, game still looks more interesting then anything else out currently or coming. From a tech point of view. If it was Warhammer, Warcraft, Star Wars, or insert random new bland IP with the same Voxels/Storybricks and what not, I'd still be interested. It's a plus that it is the IP that brought me into this genre.
When it comes closer to release, I'm sure they'll advertise as "From the company that started it all with the best MMORPG of all time EQ....we bring you EQN" but realistically who is really going to care that much? How many fans/vets of EQ make up the total gaming population that SOE is targeting?
When I see EQN, I see EQ. Just as the new Star Wars Rebels is Star Wars to me. Some of us seem to like a wider variety of products based on an original that we hold dearly.
Why didn't people zerg in EQ?
Why won't those reasons hold true in EQN?
YES! exactly this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you even play EQ? I question whether you did if you even have to ask those questions.
Ditto.. ^^^^^^^^^^
I miss being part of a community even when I'm not fighting ALL the damn time.. I loved taking time off from XP grinding to play Mr Taxi , or Mr Banker, and many times I just buffed newbies for mats I used in crafting (food and drink).. Games today are almost pure shoot em up arcade.. Whereas games of the past allowed for non combat activities and roles that built a reputation and community..
I did for the first 4-5 years or so. Just curious where this idea that EQN has to follow GW2's very poor PVE mechanics and overall design instead of going with EQ, EQ2, or any number of game's mechanics. Or crazy thought, doing something new that combats zerging and soloing as being the only options for playing.
Simply pointing out the poor logic of "zerging will happen because lots of people will join each other." Plenty of games where this wasn't the case and for good reason.
Besides that, the devs have alluded to content where massive battles take place (LOTR movie style). I'd much rather players needing to form up in groups of 50-100, then 5 being able to PUG a mob zerg of 250 Orcs. Again an example of us not knowing the full context but some assuming the worst and some hoping for the best. Damn SOE and their secrets!
Feel free to answer my questions though if you some how can put the logic together of why EQ didn't have zerging (at least when I played it) and why GW2 does. And then why EQN would follow GW2's style which has been so praised for being the best PVE experience ever.