It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Good thing people didn't stop procreating in the '90s, or else creating games for people with excessive free time would indeed be a bad idea. Thankfully that is not the case, so who are we to demand that, going forward, all games be designed to cater to our busy lives? Maybe it's that demand on our time and depth of reward which created a level of exclusivity that made games worth playing night and day... or at least longer than three months.Darksworm said:A lot of people have no interest in going back to the roots of anything. Slow "this and that" makes sense when you're 13 and you feel like you have a decade of school ahead of you, with no non-educational obligations. It's a completely different thing when you have more going on in your life.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
I did not play EQ every day and I was able to hit cap prior to the first expansion. I was also part of a guild that had killed most contested raid bosses, though I was not able to be present for all of them. I found the vanilla WoW experience to actually be quite similar. Though I was able to often solo during leveling, it took a exponentially larger level of time devotion to get into the more exclusive content.Amathe said:I played both games and neither required you to play every day unless maybe you were in some bleeding edge progression guild. If the concern is "getting behind" your friends, that would happen much more easily in WoW because character advancement was generally much faster in WoW.delete5230 said:Vanilla World of Warcraft was a game that could be played for 3 hours straight, then could be put aside for a few days, First Generation Everquest 1 was not.