End Dream
06-17-2008, 11:20 PM
heres the post if you want to comment at its source:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/185529/page/1
On September 25th, 1997, Ultima Online was released, giving birth to the modern age of MMORPGs. Anyone lucky enough to be sitting at their computer that day with a copy of UO in their hands got to experience one of the most interesting days in video game history. There were glitches, crashes, bugs, exploits, and unbearable lag in the path of anyone who dared log in to Origin's servers. But behind all the problems was a bold new game, filled with fresh ideas and a scope that no prior game could compare with. The world of Britannia was open to any who wanted to face its challenges. You could explore, craft, hunt, socialize, and die. With the success of Ultima Online, the future of the genre certainly looked bright. This was only the beginning. With time the genra would grow and mature, and soon there would be games that blew Ultima Online away, leaving it to only be remembered as the game that sparked the genra alive. Right?
Well, Maybe Not. I'm sitting here almost 11 years later looking at the account management page for Age of Conan. It's been out barely two weeks, and I'm about to cancel my subscription and head back to the world of Britannia. Not on an official server, but one that emulates the feel of the game as it was back in 1998. From the time I first entered Ultima Online up to the time I'm writing this, I have spent hours and hours playing every single MMORPG I could manage to provide time for. I've explored the worlds of Everquest, Asheron's Call 1 and 2, Final Fantasy XI, Anarchy, Eve and Shadowbane. I was there for the rise of Warcraft, the scams of Dark and Light, the patches that destroyed Star Wars: Galaxies, and the bot farming of Lineage II. I've seen it all. My list of cancelled subscriptions could stretch for miles. So why have I gone full circle back to the game I began with. What happened?
The problem as I see it began on March 16th, 1999, with the release of Everquest. Now don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun playing Everquest. It was a good game for its time, but it was also the biggest factor in the destruction of the genre. Everquest provided players with a much less open-ended experience than that of Ultima. The game's mechanics were less complex, the choices a player could make were more restricted, and the gameplay was more structured. All this would have been fine except for the fact that Everquest made a lot more money than Ultima. They were both a commercial success, but Everquest was an absolute jackpot for the producers. Now any company looking to fund a new MMORPG had to face a depressing fact: The production companies were a lot more likely to provide money for an Everquest style game than an Ultima one.
So the years rolled on, and many new MMORPGs began to hit the market. I purchased game after game eagerly anticipating the successor to Ultima; a game that would take Ultima's core principals and extend them to create an even greater immersive experience. Asheron's Call showed some promiss with a seamless 3D world and an open ended PvP server called Darktide. Siege warfare and harsh PvP were anticipated from Shadowbane. Star Wars: Galaxies offered an open style economic system, and a skill structure similar to Ultima. There was hope in the air, but that hope would quickly transform into despair.
In April 2000, Ultima Online, in an attempt to inscrease subscription numbers, begins a series of steps to make Ultima a lot more like Everquest. The world is also doubled in size, but not by new content. Instead they jusy create a second instance of the existing land. PvP is ruined. A year later, Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online are released. Camelot is almost an exact replica of Everquest, except that it adds an extremely static and close-ended team PvP system. It becomes a huge commercial success anyways. Anarchy offers a fresh new Sci-fi theme into the genre, but I sensed trouble on my first trip to the instanced dungeons. This was touted as a feature. It seemed to me to be a cheap way for the developers to create less content and stretch that to more players.
Soon enough, Everquest clones were being released every few months. Asheron's Call II, Final Fantasy XI, Everquest II, Lineage II, City of Heroes. There was no room left in the market for another game just like Everquest right? I thought so, and just when I was convinced of it, World of Warcraft came out, proving me to be as nieve as they come. I played Warcraft day and night and watched the list of servers grow beyond belief. This game was hugely popular, but at its core, it still remained just a highly polished copy of Everquest. Sure it looked different, but the gameplay was largely the same. I couldn't understand why anyone thought it was so good.
So what's wrong with all these games? Well nothing if you like them. But if you are like me and yearn for open- ended MMORPGs, then none of these new games will really do it for you. What happened to having a challenge? Games should actually penalize death. Death!... Death should be bad. There is no need for zones and instancing. Ultima and Asheron's call, two of the first MMOs, had seamless worlds. Why is the technology for it absent today? Crafting should be as much a part of the game as hunting. You should be able to loot players that you kill, and have them loot you. A MMORPG should offer a feeling of being immersed, which means being part of a living, breathing world. Today's MMOs feel more like single player games than they do their predecessors. How about a skill based system for once and does every single game need to have classes and levels?
Today's games are over designed. Everything is laid out for you from level one so you are never in a situation too hard or too easy. You are guided on a path where you are faced with no challenge and constant repition. I want to be scared in a dungeon. I want the fear of being Pkd, and I want the exhilaration of success when I finally make it through these challenges. I'm sick of the expected, and this is why I find myself on the Age of Conan account management page today, cancelling my subscription.
Age of Conan is a terrible game. It is the most banal experience I've had in years. It will outsell almost every other current MMORPG and turn the developers into millionaires. It offers no interesting ideas of its own and simply repeats the same old crap we've seen for years. I don't blame the developers though, because this is apparently what people want. This is what people buy and love to play. I didn't understand it years ago and I certainly don't understand it today. The MMORPG market, despite a few brave souls like Eve, is devoid of interesting ideas. The open-ended MMO is dead. It died a long time ago. The genre is in a sad state and will continue to be so until some developer is brave enough to try something new. Until then, I'll be hiding out in Britannia, circa 1998. Sorry for the rant.
my response, much more flamish because of my forumfall roots:
i agree with everything the OP said..
and about the FFA PvP, there are a couple misconceptions and I’m going to explain them with my extreme bias =D
first of all, in UO there weren’t levels, i agree FFA PVP is a bad idea in games with lvls because there is absolutely no possibility of beating 20 levels about you.. even 5 people 20 levels below often cant kill someone higher
levels are a restriction, much like linear quests systems and tailored classes that suck away immersion and should not be in an MMO
The lack of FFA PVP is an invisible barrier that makes the world fake, as opposed to living and breathing.. you can hate it.. and most people that hate it are weak people imo.. just like in real life they cant roll with the punches.. when the going gets tough you figure out how to improve your situation.. whether in real life or not...
you cry about how pvp is hard just like how you probably cry about how college is hard or work is hard...
in a game with out levels, people with substantially less skill can beat people that are "higher lvled" if they are genuinely better than them..
yes a noob cant compete but he can get through it.. when i started UO, i was a miner, I got PKed.. guess what i didnt cry and quit.. i worked on being able to defend myself..
i get a bit heated about this topic not only because the games being made are garbage but because of the overwhelming evidence that the majority of humanity is lazy and wants to be spoon feed.. WoW is a sociology experiment that has proven that most people are lazy pieces of crap who want life on easy mode and hate challenges
/rantoff
though it was interesting.. wondering what the pro FFA PVPers think of all this
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/185529/page/1
On September 25th, 1997, Ultima Online was released, giving birth to the modern age of MMORPGs. Anyone lucky enough to be sitting at their computer that day with a copy of UO in their hands got to experience one of the most interesting days in video game history. There were glitches, crashes, bugs, exploits, and unbearable lag in the path of anyone who dared log in to Origin's servers. But behind all the problems was a bold new game, filled with fresh ideas and a scope that no prior game could compare with. The world of Britannia was open to any who wanted to face its challenges. You could explore, craft, hunt, socialize, and die. With the success of Ultima Online, the future of the genre certainly looked bright. This was only the beginning. With time the genra would grow and mature, and soon there would be games that blew Ultima Online away, leaving it to only be remembered as the game that sparked the genra alive. Right?
Well, Maybe Not. I'm sitting here almost 11 years later looking at the account management page for Age of Conan. It's been out barely two weeks, and I'm about to cancel my subscription and head back to the world of Britannia. Not on an official server, but one that emulates the feel of the game as it was back in 1998. From the time I first entered Ultima Online up to the time I'm writing this, I have spent hours and hours playing every single MMORPG I could manage to provide time for. I've explored the worlds of Everquest, Asheron's Call 1 and 2, Final Fantasy XI, Anarchy, Eve and Shadowbane. I was there for the rise of Warcraft, the scams of Dark and Light, the patches that destroyed Star Wars: Galaxies, and the bot farming of Lineage II. I've seen it all. My list of cancelled subscriptions could stretch for miles. So why have I gone full circle back to the game I began with. What happened?
The problem as I see it began on March 16th, 1999, with the release of Everquest. Now don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun playing Everquest. It was a good game for its time, but it was also the biggest factor in the destruction of the genre. Everquest provided players with a much less open-ended experience than that of Ultima. The game's mechanics were less complex, the choices a player could make were more restricted, and the gameplay was more structured. All this would have been fine except for the fact that Everquest made a lot more money than Ultima. They were both a commercial success, but Everquest was an absolute jackpot for the producers. Now any company looking to fund a new MMORPG had to face a depressing fact: The production companies were a lot more likely to provide money for an Everquest style game than an Ultima one.
So the years rolled on, and many new MMORPGs began to hit the market. I purchased game after game eagerly anticipating the successor to Ultima; a game that would take Ultima's core principals and extend them to create an even greater immersive experience. Asheron's Call showed some promiss with a seamless 3D world and an open ended PvP server called Darktide. Siege warfare and harsh PvP were anticipated from Shadowbane. Star Wars: Galaxies offered an open style economic system, and a skill structure similar to Ultima. There was hope in the air, but that hope would quickly transform into despair.
In April 2000, Ultima Online, in an attempt to inscrease subscription numbers, begins a series of steps to make Ultima a lot more like Everquest. The world is also doubled in size, but not by new content. Instead they jusy create a second instance of the existing land. PvP is ruined. A year later, Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online are released. Camelot is almost an exact replica of Everquest, except that it adds an extremely static and close-ended team PvP system. It becomes a huge commercial success anyways. Anarchy offers a fresh new Sci-fi theme into the genre, but I sensed trouble on my first trip to the instanced dungeons. This was touted as a feature. It seemed to me to be a cheap way for the developers to create less content and stretch that to more players.
Soon enough, Everquest clones were being released every few months. Asheron's Call II, Final Fantasy XI, Everquest II, Lineage II, City of Heroes. There was no room left in the market for another game just like Everquest right? I thought so, and just when I was convinced of it, World of Warcraft came out, proving me to be as nieve as they come. I played Warcraft day and night and watched the list of servers grow beyond belief. This game was hugely popular, but at its core, it still remained just a highly polished copy of Everquest. Sure it looked different, but the gameplay was largely the same. I couldn't understand why anyone thought it was so good.
So what's wrong with all these games? Well nothing if you like them. But if you are like me and yearn for open- ended MMORPGs, then none of these new games will really do it for you. What happened to having a challenge? Games should actually penalize death. Death!... Death should be bad. There is no need for zones and instancing. Ultima and Asheron's call, two of the first MMOs, had seamless worlds. Why is the technology for it absent today? Crafting should be as much a part of the game as hunting. You should be able to loot players that you kill, and have them loot you. A MMORPG should offer a feeling of being immersed, which means being part of a living, breathing world. Today's MMOs feel more like single player games than they do their predecessors. How about a skill based system for once and does every single game need to have classes and levels?
Today's games are over designed. Everything is laid out for you from level one so you are never in a situation too hard or too easy. You are guided on a path where you are faced with no challenge and constant repition. I want to be scared in a dungeon. I want the fear of being Pkd, and I want the exhilaration of success when I finally make it through these challenges. I'm sick of the expected, and this is why I find myself on the Age of Conan account management page today, cancelling my subscription.
Age of Conan is a terrible game. It is the most banal experience I've had in years. It will outsell almost every other current MMORPG and turn the developers into millionaires. It offers no interesting ideas of its own and simply repeats the same old crap we've seen for years. I don't blame the developers though, because this is apparently what people want. This is what people buy and love to play. I didn't understand it years ago and I certainly don't understand it today. The MMORPG market, despite a few brave souls like Eve, is devoid of interesting ideas. The open-ended MMO is dead. It died a long time ago. The genre is in a sad state and will continue to be so until some developer is brave enough to try something new. Until then, I'll be hiding out in Britannia, circa 1998. Sorry for the rant.
my response, much more flamish because of my forumfall roots:
i agree with everything the OP said..
and about the FFA PvP, there are a couple misconceptions and I’m going to explain them with my extreme bias =D
first of all, in UO there weren’t levels, i agree FFA PVP is a bad idea in games with lvls because there is absolutely no possibility of beating 20 levels about you.. even 5 people 20 levels below often cant kill someone higher
levels are a restriction, much like linear quests systems and tailored classes that suck away immersion and should not be in an MMO
The lack of FFA PVP is an invisible barrier that makes the world fake, as opposed to living and breathing.. you can hate it.. and most people that hate it are weak people imo.. just like in real life they cant roll with the punches.. when the going gets tough you figure out how to improve your situation.. whether in real life or not...
you cry about how pvp is hard just like how you probably cry about how college is hard or work is hard...
in a game with out levels, people with substantially less skill can beat people that are "higher lvled" if they are genuinely better than them..
yes a noob cant compete but he can get through it.. when i started UO, i was a miner, I got PKed.. guess what i didnt cry and quit.. i worked on being able to defend myself..
i get a bit heated about this topic not only because the games being made are garbage but because of the overwhelming evidence that the majority of humanity is lazy and wants to be spoon feed.. WoW is a sociology experiment that has proven that most people are lazy pieces of crap who want life on easy mode and hate challenges
/rantoff
though it was interesting.. wondering what the pro FFA PVPers think of all this