Sure, it was revolutionary when it was released. Yeah, it's more addicting than coffee and crack together. But it's not fun.

Looking back on the months I wasted playing EQ, I can only find one or two good memories; the rest being of kill stealers, campers and the inability to find a group.

Another thing that annoys me about EQ is the classes are severely unbalanced. I once dueled a 29 Mage with my 51 warrior.. and I lost, badly. Hell, without his pet he probably still would have won. That leads me to another point: grouping. I can understand that this is an integral part of MMORPGs, but it shouldn't be mandatory if you want to gain EXP. With the exception of pure casters and druid, no class can solo things their level, or even 5 levels below them.

Verant needs to get its priorities in order. It's about the customers, not the bottom line. If they don't start to heed many of their already angry customers' complaints, they will lose a majority when the bigger and better next generation of MMORPGs hit the market. I myself am anxious to try Anarchy Online and Horizons. I just hope they're nothing like EQ, else this vicious cycle will start again..

"Sure, it was revolutionary when it was released. Yeah, it's more addicting than coffee and crack together. But it's not fun."

It's fun in the odd way that games that make you work and reward you for working are fun. I guess what I mean is that there's this satisfaction in getting to that next level, finding a slightly nicer item, and so on. But yeah, I get what you mean. If you make yourself stop playing it for awhile, it really loses it hold on you.

snip

About grouping, I agree. That was a design decision they made, but I think they went too far. It's too hard to solo after you get up in levels.

"Verant needs to get its priorities in order. It's about the customers, not the bottom line. If they don't start to heed many of their already angry customers' complaints, they will lose a majority when the bigger and better next generation of MMORPGs hit the market. I myself am anxious to try Anarchy Online and Horizons. I just hope they're nothing like EQ, else this vicious cycle will start again.."

The problem is that every change they make tends to upset some people while making others happy. For instance, I doubt at this point they could do much about the grouping issue.

They'll probably lose some customers, but when Star Wars Online comes out, I bet they'll have plenty of interest.

We're getting a bunch of these games coming out over the next couple of years, so maybe the best approach will be to play them for 3-6 months and then move on to something else.

When I looked at eqvault tonight, there were 75,000 folks playing EQ online. They seem to be doing OK so far.

They made a lot of mistakes in the design of the game, mostly by gearing it towards extreme power gamers. I can't see myself buying another Verant game; I just don't want to go through that again.

But the things that worked (the class system, the mob AI) worked well enough to make the game very addictive for the first few months. And the fact that so many folks are still playing is testimony to the fact that Everquest is broadening the market for online games. I expect Star Wars Online will do more of that.

(I have mixed feelings about that, because a lot of those customers can't buy a clue and are not people I much want to play with... but that's my choice.)

Oh, and I don't think making it tough to solo was so bad, but they should have been a lot more up-front about how tough it would be; then there would have been fewer angry customers.

"But the things that worked (the class system, the mob AI) worked well enough to make the game very addictive for the first few months. And the fact that so many folks are still playing is testimony to the fact that Everquest is broadening the market for online games. I expect Star Wars Online will do more of that."

Well, remember that Star Wars is being designed by Raph Koster and other ex-UO people. I don't think you can expect it to be EQ with new graphics. It should be different.

I was out at Verant 4-5 months ago to preview Velious for CGM. They gave me a tiny peek at Star Wars -- they're doing the engine and the art in San Diego. The art looks like it came straight out of a book. The new engine will push at least 3 times as many polygons. You'll be wowed.

They also had an area with the sign "Everquest 2" posted on the door. They wouldn't let me in. Heh.

Re Star Wars Online: Yes, but everything I've heard about it being different -- that it is a persistant fps rather than any kind of RPG -- just makes me less likely to play it.

Anyhow, I'm one of the few people in this country who didn't like Star Wars. EQ 2 might catch my interest, but it IS being done by the same people.

Most MMORPG fans I know are looking at Dark Age of Camelot as the logical successor of Everquest.

"Re Star Wars Online: Yes, but everything I've heard about it being different -- that it is a persistant fps rather than any kind of RPG -- just makes me less likely to play it."

I think you're confusing it with Planetside, another Verant game. SWO will be very much an RPG.

"Anyhow, I'm one of the few people in this country who didn't like Star Wars. EQ 2 might catch my interest, but it IS being done by the same people."

I've enjoyed the movies, but the fictional universe doesn't do a lot for me. Jedis, the Force, etc. -- who cares? Well, a lot of people do, apparently.

"Most MMORPG fans I know are looking at Dark Age of Camelot as the logical successor of Everquest."

The logical successor to EQ is EQ2, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter if another one comes out that's better. Current EQ players have lots of friends who play and have invested a lot of time in the game. It will be hard to get them to change games until the official sequel comes out.

Thanks, you are right, I got it confused with Planetside.

I don't agree with you about it being hard to change games. I had hundreds of hours invested, but so what? It's just a game.

"I don't agree with you about it being hard to change games. I had hundreds of hours invested, but so what? It's just a game."

So if it's just a game, why are you convinced you won't want to play EQ2 even before you know the feature list, etc.? Why not keep an open mind?

People take these MMORPGs much more seriously than they do most other games. UO retained the majority of their players once EQ came out. AC didn't really even put a dent in either UO or EQ. I'd be very surprised if any new MMORPG gets to even the 100,000 subscriber level. Players stick with the game they've invested the time with, more often than not.

Well...

I play online with InsomniaX clan. We use Battlecom off a group of dedicated servers, so you can always look and see what everybody is playing. Lately, it's been a LOT of Asheron's Call.

Ok, so I fell for it. I went out and bought the thing - even though I'm soooo bored with EQ that I could die. Ya know what? I like this game... quite a bit. It doesn't bore me, doesn't have the goofy level restrictions that keep me from partying with my friends if they're higher than me, and I like the incremental experience points and skill system a LOT more than camping something for a day just to watch bubbles fill up ever so slowly.

I think if this game had been first, it would be "EQ" and EQ would be hurting.

Mark Asher asked:
"So if it's just a game, why are you convinced you won't want to play EQ2 even before you know the feature list, etc.? Why not keep an open mind?

"People take these MMORPGs much more seriously than they do most other games..."

Fair question. My answer is that the "spin" Verant put on everything, especially via Gordon Wrinn, left a very bad taste in my mouth. I find it hard to imagine them changing their approach. But if I got credible evidence that they had (e.g., posts from folks I trust), sure, I'd try a new game. But I'm sure not going to buy another game that smells like Everquest, with its insane tedium levels.

I agree that the players take MMORPGs seriously; I just don't agree that it's the investment in their characters. As it happens I knew several folks who left UO to try EQ, but most of them went back to UO. They are very different games, and EQ didn't appeal to them very much (just as UO never appealed to me -- I find first person 3d much more immersive).

Anyhow, I don't see many options for extending EQ in a fun way. All the recent stuff takes a huge army to tackle (I'm exaggerating, but not a lot). That isn't the game most of us signed up to play. One of the problems with designing a leveling-oriented game is making it fun when the leveling is done. I don't think EQ has much of an end-game.

Oh, and I played AC for a month but just couldn't get into it at all. It was like EQ, but much blander. (Only one race, no factions, poor spell names, ugly mobs...) I hope Turbine improves on the technology but hires some new game designers and takes another whack at creating a MMORPG.

"Oh, and I played AC for a month but just couldn't get into it at all. It was like EQ, but much blander. (Only one race, no factions, poor spell names, ugly mobs...) I hope Turbine improves on the technology but hires some new game designers and takes another whack at creating a MMORPG."

Yeah, that was my take on it too. It was better in quite a few subtle ways, but what was in my face all the time annoyed me.

And about Verant, they may have spun some things, but I really feel like they can't open their mouths without having everything over-analyzed. Feelings run so high about these games and players take everything so personally, I don't see how any company can come off looking good. Some players hate Origin. Some hate Turbine. And Some hate Verant.

The things I don't like about EQ are the difficulty of advancing and soloing. Otherwise, most of the other complaints seem kind of weak and the result of people taking it all far too seriously. People get furious when a single spell is changed, for example.

"I think if this game had been first, it would be "EQ" and EQ would be hurting."

Maybe, but Turbine made a big mistake in not going for the high fantasy motif (elves, dwarves, halfings, orcs) and going with weird creatures instead, and they also made a huge mistake in not having better graphics. Those two things killed them, IMO.

Hey Qenan, I found this on the official Star Wars Online messageboards. It's interesting because it shows how different SWO will be from EQ:

Q. IF IT'S NOT ABOUT POWER DIFFERENTIALS, WHY KEEP PLAYING?

A. (Raph Koster) Well--Magic: The Gathering wasn't about power differentials either. It was about the range of tactical choices you had available to you. You wanted more cards because they gave you more choices. Yu tried hard to build a good deck because it made a strategic difference. Think of our skills as being like Magic cards, and you'll have a pretty solid analogy.

When I said power differentials, I meant that advancement doesn't just take your previous character and increase all the numbers on it. What that leads to is characters who have the smae abilities, only one is plain old better than another. And that means that there's no reason for those two to play together or group together. (In fact, it may be downright hard or impossible, especially if your game content is scaled to fit one level or another).

I got in to this MMPORG thing a bit late: I started with UO. I don't know much about Gemstone, Meridian 59, The Realm, or any of the the MUDs from the 70's (here's a link to a MUD article at gamespy http://www.gamespy.com/articles/january01/muds1/ )
but here is my opinion so far:

UO) The interface was a bit clumsy at first, and the pking got to be very annoying. UO proved several things to me.
1) Aggressive people post to message boards aggressively. This means that "user input" tends to be on the aggressive side. The UO staff wanted to design their game more around their player's needs, and ended up with game suited towards aggressive people.
2) Massive games that rely on Stats/Skills to define a character, while saying they have the most "customizable" characters with the most "variations", unfortunately do not, as there will be only one or two ways to make a character that is by far more effective than other combinations. Once these combinations are known, all players who wish to compete on an even plane must design their characters in this way. Thus, the tank mage.

EQ) This is my favorite MMPORG, probably due to the easy communication system, and my familiarity with the interface. I feel Verant did a pretty good job with it's power ramp, keeping the game difficult enough so that it can provide years of new experiences for the normal player, which translates into months of playing time for the power gamer. I prefer the class system, as it gives me a distinctly different playing experience for each character class I play. I also like the zone/server setup, as each zone has the potential to be a completely new experience. Bad things about the game are an enforced dependancy on grouping, and the focus spent on item gathering, as items are fairly over-powered (IMHO). Also, when I was playing UO, the economy was a major issue, as players could "buy" houses, boats and such. In EQ, the economy is less important, though the rich still have the best stuff.

AC) In my opinion, Turbine did an excellent job at reading the message boards of UO and EQ, found out what was bugging everybody, and tried to make a game without the problems of either game. I think this has been their greatest weakness for me. The faster spawn rates and enhanced aggressiveness of the creatures make travelling uncomfortable. The decreased time between battles, though at first very appealing, limits player's abilities to communicate and meet new people, unlike EQ, where sitting around regenerating or medding actually has the positive benefit of pushing people in to communicating with others. The allegiance system requires a huge time commitment to do right. The skill/stat system falls the way of the UO trap, though less so due to a lot more variation. The game, though, has a lot of good points to it, and EQ players who find it chafing to have to rely on others for survival will find a much better home in AC. I think AC has the most beautiful skies of any game I have played. Also, this is one MMPORG you can log on, play for 15 minutes, and log off feeling pretty good about your experience. Many of my closest friends prefer AC over the other 2.

"2) Massive games that rely on Stats/Skills to define a character, while saying they have the most "customizable" characters with the most "variations", unfortunately do not, as there will be only one or two ways to make a character that is by far more effective than other combinations. Once these combinations are known, all players who wish to compete on an even plane must design their characters in this way. Thus, the tank mage."

Yeah, this is the difficulty of skill-based systems. They're very difficult to balance, and if you don't balance them, everyone gravitates towards the best skills. That's why everyone was a tank-mage in UO. EQ is a class system, and those are a bit easier to balance, though I know people will argue that they are unbalanced.

That's an interesting take on the impact of downtime in EQ. I think it probably does promote more socializing, provided you have a group to play with. EQ is definitely most enjoyable when you have a regular group to play with. Unfortunately, that means it's hard to play unless you can set aside a good block of time.

Class based systems are definitely unbalanced. They also have a definite lack of individualism within their classes.I remember the big complaint about AD&D was that, except for stats and equipment, one 10th level thief was exactly the same as the next. One of the chief reasons to have a skill/stat character generation scheme is to promote greater individualism.

However, as I said, it doesn't work that way in situations where there is only one way to interact with the world. In a pen-and-pencil roleplaying game, you can excell at dance or underwater basket weaving and become the hero when that skill is suddenly needed in order to save the world. In MMPORGs, the main source of interaction with the world in order to "beat the game" is combat. Thus, choosing a "roleplayer's skill" such as etiquette in an S/S system only takes away from your character's effectiveness, making a player feel weak when he is traveling in a pack of more efficient killing machines.

I think a class-based system that is heavily balanced towards group play promotes more individualism due to situational imbalances (people will choose enchanters because they are effective at defense and buffing,, while warriors will be the prime choice for soaking damage and getting into the action quicker) than S/S systems, which pressure players, like water, down a single track of best effectiveness that reduces individualism to non-existence.

While there were differences in the classes of Everquest, and a few classes were quite poor, on the whole I thought the classes were reasonably balanced. There were at least five or six classes that were definitely worth playing, and probably another few marginal ones. Not perfect by a long shot (and some classes really sucked), but a lot better than the single tank-mage that a skills system can degenerate into. (Actually, I think AC degenerated into a couple of viable templates, but it still isn't as diverse as Everquest.)

There is another advantage to a class system: it promotes relatively complex strategy and group interactions. This is very difficult in a skills system because
1) as mentioned, folks tend to gravitate to a small number of advantageous templates. If there are only one (or two or three) basic archetypes, very little interesting strategy takes place.
2) if there was diversity, you'd never know what you were getting in a pick-up group. In EQ strategy is possible BECAUSE you know what the classes are and what they should be able to do. Of course, different players play with differing ability, but it sets enough of a base level expectation to make pick-up groups possible. And most groups start via pick-up groups.

I think Raph's ideas are interesting but am reserving judgement. He had a lot of interesting ideas with UO, but I don't think it turned out all that well. Balancing a skills-based system is demonstrably very hard; there are just too many combinations.

Q

Just as an aside, one of the better EQ FAQs out there.

http://www.brunching.com/features/everquest.html

Things that Asheron's Call gets right, IMO:

1. Complete character customization. What you folks said before about there only being a few successful templates is partially true, but you can still take even one of those and build your own personality into it. Take my character for example... I'm "Invincible Magic Chef" and I run around dressed all in white, throwing flaming jack-o-lanterns as my weapon of choice (because I can make 'em myself and they hit hella hard). I took alchemy, cooking, and creature enchantment as my profession skills. Well, does that sound like a "tank mage" to you? Not really. Am I successful? You bet. I'm of equal level to the toughest warrior in the party. I fight decently, but the real value of having me around (other than looking like you've got one of the Mystery Men in your party) is that I'm a factory for converting a BUNCH of otherwise worthless loot into healing and mana restoring culinary delights. Right there on the battlefield, I'll take that chicken you were going to leave on the corpse and turn it into a +20 mana boost for our mage. And ya know, I'm getting nice XP for doing it too. Did you pick up a plate or goblet? Oh, that's a throwing weapon for me and no longer useless loot. I'm the blue rajah's cousin, man.

2. Incremental advancement. This is a HUGE boon for me. No longer do you sit there watching bubbles of XP fill up and waiting to get your new points after a week of fighting. You can spend points as you earn them, right there and then. For a game system that works on the reward system for effort put into it, it's nice to get a constant stream of small reward rather than working your ass off for a "ding" once a week.

3. The magic system. They are STILL discovering new spells. Rather than just buying a scroll and then instantly having that spell, you buy components and play "mix and match" until you research your own spell. Sure, you can find all the cheap spells listed out on the web, but the higher level formulae are jealously guarded - because the more people who cast it, the lesser the effect. So, they built in a reason to not blab to everyone about the new spell you just made.

4. THE BIG ONE: Monthly update to the STORY. Yeah, they tell an actual story in the game, and quite a good tale too. So, every 30 days the game gets a new area or two to explore, changes to the current landscape, a few new monsters, and some other stuff. This is stuff EQ has made us pay for TWICE now.

The one thing I really dislike, however, is that there is no armor restriction for spellcasting. There's something basically not right about seeing a mage run around in full plate armor and waving a wand. Tank mages would then have to make a choice between being protected and casting spells. Actually, it would be simple to implement - just impose a penalty to spellcasting rolls for each peice of metal armor you're wearing... Guys with high skill could still cast the wimpy spells through their armor, but they'd have to shed it to whip up any serious mojo.

"4. THE BIG ONE: Monthly update to the STORY. Yeah, they tell an actual story in the game, and quite a good tale too. So, every 30 days the game gets a new area or two to explore, changes to the current landscape, a few new monsters, and some other stuff. This is stuff EQ has made us pay for TWICE now."

Yeah, Turbine has really done a superior job with this. My only beef is that you miss out on it if you want to sign up later. It would be cool if there was some way new players could experience it. I guess in a dynamic multiplayer world that's impossible.

Your character sounds pretty cool. Invincible magic chef. Heh.

I'll have to admit that despite really despisiing EQ I had some of the best online experiences on EQ. . . i kind of catch myself reminiscing once in awhile about the first times i made it to Unrest. . . finding cool people to group with . . . my first time on a boat etc etc. . . the list grows endless. . . the success of EQ was all about grouping.

and i would be the first to admit that i think the graphics in EQ are the best in ANY rpg i've ever played. . . they do fantasy right. . . i even think its the Barbie fashion aspect of EQ which keeps ppl playing, the various dress-up of your characters keeps people playing to get that one-up on others who dont have YOUR items to show off etc. . . and the various races and yes CLASS based system, ppl recognize there roles more readily in a class based game. . . which i prefer. . and i think the avg non gaming rpg person can easily grasp

will EQ die? eventually it will, though if you look at UO it still has upwards of 100k subscribers. . . so until the next verant mmorpg comes out EQ is here to stay. . .

my main gripe is the slow nature of EQ, i'd go so far to say that EQ could have had more than a million subs if they speeded up the game. . . instead of 300k. . . all they would have to do to is increase game speed, rewards and increase the level to 100 (if they really were afraid of players leaving). . . and make the last 10 levels ultra HELL levels. . .

but instead, were stuck with an aggravating MASSIVE time consuming mmorpg with shades of greatness, where ppl usually quit in disgust,no other game seems to leave so many ppl angry after they have stopped playing it.

etc

"my main gripe is the slow nature of EQ, i'd go so far to say that EQ could have had more than a million subs if they speeded up the game. . . instead of 300k. . . all they would have to do to is increase game speed, rewards and increase the level to 100 (if they really were afraid of players leaving). . . and make the last 10 levels ultra HELL levels. . ."

I agree with this. I'd love to play a character up to the limit and then start a new one. The game does take far too long to play. There are so many combinations of race and character classes that I could play through the game 5-6 times and not get bored.

"...no other game seems to leave so many ppl angry after they have stopped playing it."

Bingo. Nothing else even comes close.