Yellow question marks, npc's giving quest, what quest were....It's just the basics of mmo's.
Untrue.
it is what became the worst of the gentrification of MMORPGs, but it was never, originally, the 'basics'. The 'basics were co-op and community, and the emergent gameplay that came from a basic open world.
Quests, as in the WoW sense, were a serious misstep, not the 'basics'.
I think the core of MMOs is more dungeons then quests. You pick a party and run dungeons with monsters and traps in them, just like people did with chainmail (predecessor of D&D).
Most MMOs have some kind of quests, some many others few but some of them have been made with no quests, Lineage for example still have 3 million paying subscribers and while I don't know about now, I did play the beta in '01 (got 8 levels under max but I tired of it) and it didn't have any quests at all then at least. UO and Eve were not questgames either.
But I don't think quests is a misstep, I just think they are implementing them badly. A MMO don't need 10K small easy quests you can complete in a few minutes without any difficulty. Fewer but more epic quests that feels meaningful. A quest is more to find the holy grail then go and mash 10 cockroaches in the kitchen. Also, I think that they tell us exactly what to do and where to do it is a mistake. Many of the quests could easily have multiple solutions and should require at least a little thought.
I don't think open world is as typical of MMOs as dungeons are, dungeons go back to pen and paper and even to the early miniature games of the early 70s (Chainmail is from '71, it turned into D&D a few years later). To be fair is it really the group that is the really MMO typical thing, and the guild.
Of course there have been earlier CRPGs with dungeons but I can't think of anything good where you actually run a full group of players through a dungeon, besides the MUDs.
In any case: MMOs don't really need quests, they are just a simple way to point out the content to the players. Some quests are entertaining but most of them are rather silly FEDEX and pest control quests. Other games have used exploration to find the content, bounties instead of pest control quests, dynamic events which are a kind of open group quest but tend to offer a bit more choices since they usually have several objectives and you usually can pick what of them you want to do... Pantheon will use it's perception system that let you notice and find hidden content as you get better.
I think the important thing is that the game feels like you actually are doing different things instead of just the same thing over and over. Click on a npc, go kill 10 mobs, turnin and continue gets insanely boring after a while. If the quests feels like a boring grind they could have been done better.
Personally do I think some larger and tougher quests (maybe a few hundred in total), together with DEs and exploration (content you find by exploring the gameworld) is the best. Some variations are always good and I think people are getting a bit tired of the 3 minute quest.
I imagine this game with be very much like Vanguard. VG was a great game. It literally had everything that you could hope for in an mmo. However, it had very niche and had a very small player base. I don't have a crystal ball. However, if I was a guessing man. I'd say Pantheon won't turn out much different.
The problem with that logic is that Vanguard was close to unplayable at launch and took a long time to fix, if Wow would have released in that shape and taken so long time fixing up it would too have a small playerbase.
We have zero clue how well a well polished Vanguard would have done because of that (well, it wouldn't have done Wow good anyways so we maybe have a little clue) so explaining it's failure with that it was niche is unfair.
Id say I have some clue. At release vanguard was so popular that all 8 faction starting areas were crowded-full of people. If people had not left because of buggy programming it would have been a huge success. The failure was not at all because of niche or it would not have had that many at start.
Goodness you're rude there was no need to call me thick but I should return that compliment as a 2 week release between two games of such differing popularity is not at all significant as one game went on to gather millions by its side. It is natural anyone would associate the overhead quest indicator with WoW and not Everquest 2.
If you find that objectionable take that up with WoW's popularity .
Again it doesn't matter whether someone associates quest markers with WOW the fact remains that it was EQ2 that first introduced them in what was the first of the truly theme park mmo.
You can go round and round but unless WOW came before EQ2 you have lost.
If you want to have a conversation last on which mmo was more popular then that's another conversation.
Take it on the chin lol.
Being the first means squat in this sense, it's what set the precedent of it being popular that matters most, that is most definitely WOW. It wasn't EQ2 that influenced WOW.
Actually as they were intended to compete head to head there would have been considerable borrowing of ideas from each other. That is why they released within days of each other. While this quest marker thing had precedents in other games one of these two (WoW & EQ2) would have incorporated the feature first and the other rapidly copied it during development. After this length of time we can't even guess which was first.
In short EQ2 did influence WoW and WoW did influence EQ2.
That's a lot of conjecture on your part.
Quest markers were in a lot of games prior to WOW and EQ2 in the single player world, especially games geared toward younger audiences.
Also who's to say where either got the idea from could have been from a dev conference/convention, and neither that made the pitch?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Goodness you're rude there was no need to call me thick but I should return that compliment as a 2 week release between two games of such differing popularity is not at all significant as one game went on to gather millions by its side. It is natural anyone would associate the overhead quest indicator with WoW and not Everquest 2.
If you find that objectionable take that up with WoW's popularity .
Again it doesn't matter whether someone associates quest markers with WOW the fact remains that it was EQ2 that first introduced them in what was the first of the truly theme park mmo.
You can go round and round but unless WOW came before EQ2 you have lost.
If you want to have a conversation last on which mmo was more popular then that's another conversation.
Take it on the chin lol.
Being the first means squat in this sense, it's what set the precedent of it being popular that matters most, that is most definitely WOW. It wasn't EQ2 that influenced WOW.
Actually as they were intended to compete head to head there would have been considerable borrowing of ideas from each other. That is why they released within days of each other. While this quest marker thing had precedents in other games one of these two (WoW & EQ2) would have incorporated the feature first and the other rapidly copied it during development. After this length of time we can't even guess which was first.
In short EQ2 did influence WoW and WoW did influence EQ2.
That's a lot of conjecture on your part.
Quest markers were in a lot of games prior to WOW and EQ2 in the single player world, especially games geared toward younger audiences.
Also who's to say where either got the idea from could have been from a dev conference/convention, and neither that made the pitch?
Strange rewriting of what I said. Yes there were a lot of precedents in other games. No we cannot say with any certainty where the idea to incorporate this feature in either game came from.
But what I did say is that once either of the two incorporated this feature, then the other would have become aware of it (they were watching each other that closely). Having become aware of it they would have to consider doing the same thing. Which was 'first' well neither it had been done before, which was in the lead on incorporating this feature? Impossible to know after so much time has past and does it matter anyway?
Also who's to say where either got the idea from could have been from a dev conference/convention, and neither that made the pitch?
Impossible to know after so much time has past and does it matter anyway?
Not to the points originally being made, which was WOW is where most influence on the genre going forward came from, it popularized the questing concept, as it popularized the modern concept of the MMORPG.
That was the point I was making, which is what I meant by EQ2 didn't influence WOW (at least in that manner).. As both were in development at the same time, EQ2 wasn't a released product that could be broken down to draw influence from, nothing it offered had been proven to be successful enough to do so (it wasn't an actual product yet).
Also a reminder: it was your rebuttal I was responding to, if it didn't matter why was there one to quote?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
EQ was Neverquest not because it lacked quests - the majority of quests were 'not worth' doing. The xp rewards were minimal and the item rewards for the most part useless (it there was an item reward at all).
At one point I did one of the mail runs (to Feerot I think) and it took roughly half an hour (as a bard with speed song). I got a few silver and 100? exp. It was much more rewarding to get a group or even circle kite for that time and end up way ahead of the game reward wise. In later expansions they had some neat multi-stage quests that were worth doing (epics and coldain prayer shawl immediately leap to mind).
People will take the path of least resistance. If it is more efficient to get a group and camp mobs - guess what? People will group and camp mobs. If it is more efficient to solo - people will solo. That's just human nature.
Your last point is particularly accurate. However I would just like to clarify, when EQ came out, it was not using the term "quest" in the way that we currently interpret quests in MMO's. When they said Quest, they meant in the literal sense of the word, as in "a journey made in search of something" or "a long and difficult effort to find or do something" (per Merriam-Webster).
Point being, getting your buddies together to go down deep into a dungeon and find some phat lewtz was a quest. Unfortunately we've been poisoned by WoW and "modern" mmo's that Quest = "Task to be completed given by an NPC".
You make a very good point that I hadn't really considered before. My friends and I never interpreted it that way. We always laughed about how the least satisfying portion of the game was the quest structure (speaking about 'vanilla' EQ).
EQ was Neverquest not because it lacked quests - the majority of quests were 'not worth' doing. The xp rewards were minimal and the item rewards for the most part useless (it there was an item reward at all).
At one point I did one of the mail runs (to Feerot I think) and it took roughly half an hour (as a bard with speed song). I got a few silver and 100? exp. It was much more rewarding to get a group or even circle kite for that time and end up way ahead of the game reward wise. In later expansions they had some neat multi-stage quests that were worth doing (epics and coldain prayer shawl immediately leap to mind).
People will take the path of least resistance. If it is more efficient to get a group and camp mobs - guess what? People will group and camp mobs. If it is more efficient to solo - people will solo. That's just human nature.
Your last point is particularly accurate. However I would just like to clarify, when EQ came out, it was not using the term "quest" in the way that we currently interpret quests in MMO's. When they said Quest, they meant in the literal sense of the word, as in "a journey made in search of something" or "a long and difficult effort to find or do something" (per Merriam-Webster).
Point being, getting your buddies together to go down deep into a dungeon and find some phat lewtz was a quest. Unfortunately we've been poisoned by WoW and "modern" mmo's that Quest = "Task to be completed given by an NPC".
Hrimnir is right,
Quests should be long and hard. NOT to be confused with chain quest where you can't add other players to help because their not up to part 4 of the chain !
The kill 5 rat quest should be limited to 1-5 level so you can figure out your dynamics.
But what about the kill level 50 rats quest? Who is going to take care of them? What if they get into the newbie area. Oh the humanity
I have never liked that the menial tasks are called quests. I don't particularly mind that they exist - they just shouldn't be given the "The world will end if you don't deliver this cheese to the mayor" type of hype.
Also who's to say where either got the idea from could have been from a dev conference/convention, and neither that made the pitch?
Impossible to know after so much time has past and does it matter anyway?
Not to the points originally being made, which was WOW is where most influence on the genre going forward came from, it popularized the questing concept, as it popularized the modern concept of the MMORPG.
That was the point I was making, which is what I meant by EQ2 didn't influence WOW (at least in that manner).. As both were in development at the same time, EQ2 wasn't a released product that could be broken down to draw influence from, nothing it offered had been proven to be successful enough to do so (it wasn't an actual product yet).
Also a reminder: it was your rebuttal I was responding to, if it didn't matter why was there one to quote?
You don't think the two companies were closely watching each other?
Perhaps you were unaware that both companies were drawing from the same pool of Everquest raiders for their closed beta testing, with some top guilds being tapped by both companies. Blizzard even offered incentives for guilds to move from Everquest to WoW. These people undoubtedly leaked information about the games they were testing in their feedback.
Of course you are right Blizzard and WoW did have the most influence on the genre after release because of their massive success. But the point originally being made was not this, it was who was first, and the answer (as stated by others) is neither.
I imagine this game with be very much like Vanguard. VG was a great game. It literally had everything that you could hope for in an mmo. However, it had very niche and had a very small player base. I don't have a crystal ball. However, if I was a guessing man. I'd say Pantheon won't turn out much different.
The problem with that logic is that Vanguard was close to unplayable at launch and took a long time to fix, if Wow would have released in that shape and taken so long time fixing up it would too have a small playerbase.
We have zero clue how well a well polished Vanguard would have done because of that (well, it wouldn't have done Wow good anyways so we maybe have a little clue) so explaining it's failure with that it was niche is unfair.
Id say I have some clue. At release vanguard was so popular that all 8 faction starting areas were crowded-full of people. If people had not left because of buggy programming it would have been a huge success. The failure was not at all because of niche or it would not have had that many at start.
Almost every mmo has a ton of people at launch. It has never been an indication of how the mmo would look a few months down the road. I think you might just have wishful thinking here, or your delusional. The truth is, no one knows how well this mmo would of done if it wasn't so broken at launch.
I betaed Asheron Call 2 and I recalled something like that but wasn't very sure about it so I thought I might have imagined it and decided that it may have not been an accurate recollection. Thanks for confirming my memory @Kyleran. It explained why both EQ2 and WoW came up with the same idea around the same time.
well even if you want to dismiss AC2 you still have the big problem of quests in City of Heroes which came out 6 months prior to EQ2 and WOW. Or are you going to say something to dismiss that too.
I was talking about overhead quest markers. I am not sure what you're criticising me for ? I was not the one who said Everquest 2 was the first to introduce quest markers. I was not talking about questing per se.
Yellow question marks, npc's giving quest, what quest were....It's just the basics of mmo's.
It's all the " basic standards ".
/sigh I feel sorry for you and anyone who thinks yellow question marks are the "basic standards" of what quests were. You must have missed out on the time before the genre changed.
The problem with that logic is that Vanguard was close to unplayable at launch and took a long time to fix, if Wow would have released in that shape and taken so long time fixing up it would too have a small playerbase.
We have zero clue how well a well polished Vanguard would have done because of that (well, it wouldn't have done Wow good anyways so we maybe have a little clue) so explaining it's failure with that it was niche is unfair.
Id say I have some clue. At release vanguard was so popular that all 8 faction starting areas were crowded-full of people. If people had not left because of buggy programming it would have been a huge success. The failure was not at all because of niche or it would not have had that many at start.
As I remember it they sold around 250K copies around launch which was fine for it's time but not super impressive. If it wasn't buggy it could have gained more players (back then MMOs still gained players after launch instead of hitting peak 3 weeks after launch) or not but since it didn't happen your situation is theoretical and can't be proved either way.
But the number it had on start was probably partly due to some hype and the rest were former EQ players who enjoy that type of gameplay.
The idea that anything that doesn't focus on the casual soloplayers will fail is wrong, you can't put the rather large group players together with small group like FFA full loot PvP or permadeathers, the group fans are still a few million players and those players are far more faithful with their game then the casuals.
A good enough game focusing on these players can actually get a few million players, they were the main target of vanilla Wow (but that changed rather fast). I don't think Vanguard could have been that large even if it released in great shape, half a mil tops and I don't see Pantheon with 3.5M subs either nut if the game is good enough I could see it with 750K players which would be good and could prove that other player groups then super casuals matter as well.
Vanguards failure was as I said earlier the crappy launch, anything else is just speculation.
Early mmos such as UO, EQ1, and so on were shells of what was to come.
I do not agree with this. To the contrary, one of the reasons I am here is that EQ had so many things that later games lacked. EQ was far from being a "shell."
Pretty sure the OP never played any of the pre-WOW titles in their heydays, or he would know how feature rich and diverse so many were.
We've gone backwards so far.....
Literally they were not as feature rich as their current iterations or other modern games are.
Brokers/auction houses/safe trading systems - not there - people had to use chat in order to trade. Grouping tools - and I'm not talkng about LFD. I'm talking about tools built into games to help groups. Account/character - between creation, renaming, etc - account and character features are much more robust now.
What features were present in early games that aren't present now?
Community
Right there man! That's the #1 answer of why the old games were so much better than they are now..
All of these built in group finders, dungeon teleporting, Flying mounts (WoW), have eliminated interaction between players. I tried to go back to WoW a year ago and everyone was in Ogrimmar like it was a lobby game. I rode back out across the world and I don't think I saw a soul. I gave in and used the dungeon finder a few times and everyone rushed to the end like a rat looking for cheese. There was no talking, discussions, anything. It was a borefest. Some of these newer ones are the same exact way...
"people had to use chat in order to trade." That was part of the community and it was fun. There was times in Asheron's call I'd sit in Qualibar listening to chat for items that were for sell. I'd barter for armors that would match other armor pieces I had. Monday morning I'd go over all of the loot lists people would post on the VN forums, contact them with offers, and then meet in game after work. I made some great friends back then.
Anyone remember in Asheron's call where you would meet with your guild or just a random group that formed in game via chat, to go get their Atlan fire stone. It was a group (not solo instant gratification) effort. It was challenging, and we had to communicate to make it. People would fall to their death among a horde of mobs and multiple players would jump down there, risking their chance and progress, just to help someone. They cared about their fellow player as a person and not just a npc in their world. It wasn't faceroll easy like most of these games nowadays either.
Anyone remember in Daoc when you made it out to the frontier and you were just exploring and you got rolled by a nightblade or a roving group and just about the time you were going to release a group came by, rezzed you, and threw you a group invite for no other reason than you were a realm mate? I made many a friend that way. We had realm pride and we fought together even when we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and holding the lords room. I can't tell you how many times I've laid dead in ESO only to have people run right past you, chasing those points..
The only thing I will agree with you on Torval was Account/character - between creation, renaming, etc - account and character features are much more robust now. Then again some companies still take 2+ years to add some of the basic features (renaming, barber shops). ESo anyone..
The problem with that logic is that Vanguard was close to unplayable at launch and took a long time to fix, if Wow would have released in that shape and taken so long time fixing up it would too have a small playerbase.
We have zero clue how well a well polished Vanguard would have done because of that (well, it wouldn't have done Wow good anyways so we maybe have a little clue) so explaining it's failure with that it was niche is unfair.
Id say I have some clue. At release vanguard was so popular that all 8 faction starting areas were crowded-full of people. If people had not left because of buggy programming it would have been a huge success. The failure was not at all because of niche or it would not have had that many at start.
As I remember it they sold around 250K copies around launch which was fine for it's time but not super impressive. If it wasn't buggy it could have gained more players (back then MMOs still gained players after launch instead of hitting peak 3 weeks after launch) or not but since it didn't happen your situation is theoretical and can't be proved either way.
But the number it had on start was probably partly due to some hype and the rest were former EQ players who enjoy that type of gameplay.
The idea that anything that doesn't focus on the casual soloplayers will fail is wrong, you can't put the rather large group players together with small group like FFA full loot PvP or permadeathers, the group fans are still a few million players and those players are far more faithful with their game then the casuals.
A good enough game focusing on these players can actually get a few million players, they were the main target of vanilla Wow (but that changed rather fast). I don't think Vanguard could have been that large even if it released in great shape, half a mil tops and I don't see Pantheon with 3.5M subs either nut if the game is good enough I could see it with 750K players which would be good and could prove that other player groups then super casuals matter as well.
Vanguards failure was as I said earlier the crappy launch, anything else is just speculation.
250k was actually incredibly good for Vanguard considering most of us knew it was in really bad shape. I was not one of those 250k, nor were most of my guildmates from WoW or EQ emu servers (Winter's Roar/Shards of Dalaya at that time).
The fact is, they still managed to pull 250k even though anyone informed knew that game was being released in rough shape and way early. I'd speculate based on that number, that a far greater number of people would have played had it actually been ready for launch.
They wouldn't have sold 50k if the players knew the truth. Lucky for Smed they deleted the forums a few weeks before launch.
Actually, everyone knew. Deleting the forums didn't keep it from being said. All the most popular mmo websites and forums were talking about just how not ready Vanguard was to be launched.
250k was actually incredibly good for Vanguard considering most of us knew it was in really bad shape. I was not one of those 250k, nor were most of my guildmates from WoW or EQ emu servers (Winter's Roar/Shards of Dalaya at that time).
The fact is, they still managed to pull 250k even though anyone informed knew that game was being released in rough shape and way early. I'd speculate based on that number, that a far greater number of people would have played had it actually been ready for launch.
Far from all people knew it was in such bad shape, several of my friends were very upset when they got the game and if the 250K would have accepted it's shape most of them wouldn't have quit so soon as they did.
Now, if VG would have been in perfect shape they might have gotten some more initial players or not, impossible to say. Far more players would have stayed though, that I am certain of and maybe the subs would have increased as word got around.
We all agree that far more people would have played it if it was in great shape at launch, but exactly how many is just speculation.
But judging exactly how many players a game mechanic wise like VG but in better shape would get is not something you can guess, no matter what clues you see in Vanguard. You seriously need a game like that to actually launch in good shape to find that out, anything else is just wild speculation.
I do back Pantheon, it sounds fun but I don't think Vanguard is a good example for anything besides that a game launching in bad shape usually fails.
Pantheon is going to be interesting for sure, but let's not hype it up as the next coming of WoW based on timing alone. I agree we are getting close to a MMO revitalization but it's not quite here yet. A key thing that needs to happen timing wise is "Blizzard Shuts Down the cultural phenomenon WoW after xx Years" (I say it goes to at least 25th year anniversary before it's even considered)
That's going to be a key factor for many reasons.
Our era in the late 90s early 2ks was a good time, but it's pretty much over outside of WoW and sadly more than likely never coming back.. hell WoW is even a shell of its former self. But still time after time we see games come out with the same "Beat WoW" "BE the next WoW" mantra and it never works.
WoW needs to go away in order for really FRESH ideas to thrive with the masses and change the Genre. Not just new Ideas, but Fresh takes on the ideas that also came before. That's what blizz did with WoW and that's why it worked out. The masses were ready for that level of change. It's almost at that point now but the issue is WoW still has a strangle hold on a market that's MUCH bigger than it was when it started.
The simple presence of WoW makes it hard for fresh new ideas in MMOs to live and catch on with the masses when most are still satisfied with ideas from 2003. This is why I mentioned consoles. I think games like Destiny, and The Division, are onto something. What it is, I'm not sure but those are online games that have RPG like elements and lots of people enjoy playing them. The MMO is changing and Maybe consoles is the vehicle for the next great MMO.
There are some really great throwback single player- Co op RPG games on PC like Divinity Original Sin and Pillars of Eternity.. but the MMORPG we grew up with is long past.
It's not gloomy, it's actually interesting and exciting to see what the next GREAT thing is considering we HAVE had games like WOW, AOC, EQ, EVE, etc to look at for inspiration. But again.. Blizz would have to loosen its grip a bit to see some of that inspiration be used in something really fresh then accepted by the masses.
when WoW is gone.. people will truly hunger for the next one and then it will show up. Who knows when that will be?
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
This is the thing you see Brad had more money and a lot more people working on Vanguard and he still produced a game ridden with bugs. I cannot imagine how he can produce something better with the reduced finances and expertise at his disposal . That is why I'm very sceptical about his ability to produce a good game and yet my poor Everquest heart hopes he does.
I don't think we will see another WoW until there is more wide reaching success in the genre. Some of these "niche" games need to turn a good profit and pave the way once again as it was early on.
At that point, someone with big money will create a game that offers something new and appeals to explorers, achievers, killers and socializers (bartles 4 groups). It will likely have far greater depth than anything we've seen probably by way of advanced AI, dynamic content and an evolving world/story.
Pantheon could be plenty big in its own right though. It will be much bigger than most people anticipate.
This is the thing you see Brad had more money and a lot more people working on Vanguard and he still produced a game ridden with bugs. I cannot imagine how he can produce something better with the reduced finances and expertise at his disposal . That is why I'm very sceptical about his ability to produce a good game and yet my poor Everquest heart hopes he does.
Quite simply he ran out of money. Microsoft pulled the plug and Sony stepped in. I suspect that Sony didn't realize what state it was in when they acquired it. I think they gave them a 6 month deadline to get it ready for release? (I'm going on shaky memory here, so I could be wrong). Anyway it was not ready - but it was a fun game if you could avoid the bugs.
If you think Pantheon has the slightest chance to be as big as WoW... I dunno how to even respond.
WoW was more than a game it was for a time a social event.. it even had Coke Commercials.. (The drink lol)
This is not really about WoW....It's about timing !
I may be wrong, and at some point "the right timing" will come again, but all mmorpgs after WoW have had one thing in common... wrong timing.
IMO, If developers lower their standard and decide that success doesn't mean 10+ million subs, then any time could be the right time. Just focus on making a good game.
Comments
Most MMOs have some kind of quests, some many others few but some of them have been made with no quests, Lineage for example still have 3 million paying subscribers and while I don't know about now, I did play the beta in '01 (got 8 levels under max but I tired of it) and it didn't have any quests at all then at least. UO and Eve were not questgames either.
But I don't think quests is a misstep, I just think they are implementing them badly. A MMO don't need 10K small easy quests you can complete in a few minutes without any difficulty. Fewer but more epic quests that feels meaningful. A quest is more to find the holy grail then go and mash 10 cockroaches in the kitchen.
Also, I think that they tell us exactly what to do and where to do it is a mistake. Many of the quests could easily have multiple solutions and should require at least a little thought.
I don't think open world is as typical of MMOs as dungeons are, dungeons go back to pen and paper and even to the early miniature games of the early 70s (Chainmail is from '71, it turned into D&D a few years later). To be fair is it really the group that is the really MMO typical thing, and the guild.
Of course there have been earlier CRPGs with dungeons but I can't think of anything good where you actually run a full group of players through a dungeon, besides the MUDs.
In any case: MMOs don't really need quests, they are just a simple way to point out the content to the players. Some quests are entertaining but most of them are rather silly FEDEX and pest control quests. Other games have used exploration to find the content, bounties instead of pest control quests, dynamic events which are a kind of open group quest but tend to offer a bit more choices since they usually have several objectives and you usually can pick what of them you want to do... Pantheon will use it's perception system that let you notice and find hidden content as you get better.
I think the important thing is that the game feels like you actually are doing different things instead of just the same thing over and over. Click on a npc, go kill 10 mobs, turnin and continue gets insanely boring after a while. If the quests feels like a boring grind they could have been done better.
Personally do I think some larger and tougher quests (maybe a few hundred in total), together with DEs and exploration (content you find by exploring the gameworld) is the best. Some variations are always good and I think people are getting a bit tired of the 3 minute quest.
Quest markers were in a lot of games prior to WOW and EQ2 in the single player world, especially games geared toward younger audiences.
Also who's to say where either got the idea from could have been from a dev conference/convention, and neither that made the pitch?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But what I did say is that once either of the two incorporated this feature, then the other would have become aware of it (they were watching each other that closely). Having become aware of it they would have to consider doing the same thing. Which was 'first' well neither it had been done before, which was in the lead on incorporating this feature? Impossible to know after so much time has past and does it matter anyway?
That was the point I was making, which is what I meant by EQ2 didn't influence WOW (at least in that manner).. As both were in development at the same time, EQ2 wasn't a released product that could be broken down to draw influence from, nothing it offered had been proven to be successful enough to do so (it wasn't an actual product yet).
Also a reminder: it was your rebuttal I was responding to, if it didn't matter why was there one to quote?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You make a very good point that I hadn't really considered before. My friends and I never interpreted it that way. We always laughed about how the least satisfying portion of the game was the quest structure (speaking about 'vanilla' EQ).
I have never liked that the menial tasks are called quests. I don't particularly mind that they exist - they just shouldn't be given the "The world will end if you don't deliver this cheese to the mayor" type of hype.
Perhaps you were unaware that both companies were drawing from the same pool of Everquest raiders for their closed beta testing, with some top guilds being tapped by both companies. Blizzard even offered incentives for guilds to move from Everquest to WoW. These people undoubtedly leaked information about the games they were testing in their feedback.
Of course you are right Blizzard and WoW did have the most influence on the genre after release because of their massive success. But the point originally being made was not this, it was who was first, and the answer (as stated by others) is neither.
But the number it had on start was probably partly due to some hype and the rest were former EQ players who enjoy that type of gameplay.
The idea that anything that doesn't focus on the casual soloplayers will fail is wrong, you can't put the rather large group players together with small group like FFA full loot PvP or permadeathers, the group fans are still a few million players and those players are far more faithful with their game then the casuals.
A good enough game focusing on these players can actually get a few million players, they were the main target of vanilla Wow (but that changed rather fast). I don't think Vanguard could have been that large even if it released in great shape, half a mil tops and I don't see Pantheon with 3.5M subs either nut if the game is good enough I could see it with 750K players which would be good and could prove that other player groups then super casuals matter as well.
Vanguards failure was as I said earlier the crappy launch, anything else is just speculation.
All of these built in group finders, dungeon teleporting, Flying mounts (WoW), have eliminated interaction between players. I tried to go back to WoW a year ago and everyone was in Ogrimmar like it was a lobby game. I rode back out across the world and I don't think I saw a soul. I gave in and used the dungeon finder a few times and everyone rushed to the end like a rat looking for cheese. There was no talking, discussions, anything. It was a borefest. Some of these newer ones are the same exact way...
"people had to use chat in order to trade."
That was part of the community and it was fun. There was times in Asheron's call I'd sit in Qualibar listening to chat for items that were for sell. I'd barter for armors that would match other armor pieces I had. Monday morning I'd go over all of the loot lists people would post on the VN forums, contact them with offers, and then meet in game after work. I made some great friends back then.
Anyone remember in Asheron's call where you would meet with your guild or just a random group that formed in game via chat, to go get their Atlan fire stone. It was a group (not solo instant gratification) effort. It was challenging, and we had to communicate to make it. People would fall to their death among a horde of mobs and multiple players would jump down there, risking their chance and progress, just to help someone. They cared about their fellow player as a person and not just a npc in their world. It wasn't faceroll easy like most of these games nowadays either.
Anyone remember in Daoc when you made it out to the frontier and you were just exploring and you got rolled by a nightblade or a roving group and just about the time you were going to release a group came by, rezzed you, and threw you a group invite for no other reason than you were a realm mate? I made many a friend that way. We had realm pride and we fought together even when we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and holding the lords room. I can't tell you how many times I've laid dead in ESO only to have people run right past you, chasing those points..
The only thing I will agree with you on Torval was Account/character - between creation, renaming, etc - account and character features are much more robust now. Then again some companies still take 2+ years to add some of the basic features (renaming, barber shops). ESo anyone..
The fact is, they still managed to pull 250k even though anyone informed knew that game was being released in rough shape and way early. I'd speculate based on that number, that a far greater number of people would have played had it actually been ready for launch.
Now, if VG would have been in perfect shape they might have gotten some more initial players or not, impossible to say. Far more players would have stayed though, that I am certain of and maybe the subs would have increased as word got around.
We all agree that far more people would have played it if it was in great shape at launch, but exactly how many is just speculation.
But judging exactly how many players a game mechanic wise like VG but in better shape would get is not something you can guess, no matter what clues you see in Vanguard. You seriously need a game like that to actually launch in good shape to find that out, anything else is just wild speculation.
I do back Pantheon, it sounds fun but I don't think Vanguard is a good example for anything besides that a game launching in bad shape usually fails.
(I say it goes to at least 25th year anniversary before it's even considered)
That's going to be a key factor for many reasons.
Our era in the late 90s early 2ks was a good time, but it's pretty much over outside of WoW and sadly more than likely never coming back.. hell WoW is even a shell of its former self. But still time after time we see games come out with the same "Beat WoW" "BE the next WoW" mantra and it never works.
WoW needs to go away in order for really FRESH ideas to thrive with the masses and change the Genre. Not just new Ideas, but Fresh takes on the ideas that also came before. That's what blizz did with WoW and that's why it worked out. The masses were ready for that level of change. It's almost at that point now but the issue is WoW still has a strangle hold on a market that's MUCH bigger than it was when it started.
The simple presence of WoW makes it hard for fresh new ideas in MMOs to live and catch on with the masses when most are still satisfied with ideas from 2003. This is why I mentioned consoles. I think games like Destiny, and The Division, are onto something. What it is, I'm not sure but those are online games that have RPG like elements and lots of people enjoy playing them. The MMO is changing and Maybe consoles is the vehicle for the next great MMO.
There are some really great throwback single player- Co op RPG games on PC like Divinity Original Sin and Pillars of Eternity.. but the MMORPG we grew up with is long past.
It's not gloomy, it's actually interesting and exciting to see what the next GREAT thing is considering we HAVE had games like WOW, AOC, EQ, EVE, etc to look at for inspiration. But again.. Blizz would have to loosen its grip a bit to see some of that inspiration be used in something really fresh then accepted by the masses.
when WoW is gone.. people will truly hunger for the next one and then it will show up.
Who knows when that will be?
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
At that point, someone with big money will create a game that offers something new and appeals to explorers, achievers, killers and socializers (bartles 4 groups). It will likely have far greater depth than anything we've seen probably by way of advanced AI, dynamic content and an evolving world/story.
Pantheon could be plenty big in its own right though. It will be much bigger than most people anticipate.
IMO, If developers lower their standard and decide that success doesn't mean 10+ million subs, then any time could be the right time. Just focus on making a good game.
You CANT chart mmos.
How can you chart a game when ideas are forced on people.
How can you chart games with cash shops.
How can you chart a product knowing players will play everything.
How can you chart knowing large marketing and advertisement tricks players into playing ( good game or bad ).
How can you chart a product that worked well, then all aspects that worked well were removed permanently.