It seems like everything made in the past few years is Asian Or scifi themed.
What happened to the Euro-midevil style themed MMORPGs like Everquest? The only new one I can think of is Richard Garriott's game. I tried it, and honestly, meh.
I just can't get in to the action-based MMORPGs they keep pushing out where your character does fifty flips in the air while screaming in an Asian girls voice killing tons of mindless monsters. It's shallow game play at its finest.
I like dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings.
I enjoy spending an evening killing mobs in a mine shaft and working on my harvesting.
I prefer focusing on one to two mobs at a time and it taking 1/2 to 1 minute to finish A fight.
Is there anything out there for old farts like me anymore?
One day this style of MMO will have a revival, I guarantee it. Just like roguelikes became hot as shit a few years back, the forgotten MMO prototypes will make a comeback eventaully. And people will hail them as being revolutionary, when in actual fact the industry had just fallen asleep for two decades.
Last edited by Cerzi; 04-16-2016 at 02:30 PM.
Last edited by Arden; 04-16-2016 at 05:28 PM.
When I read the title I thought this was going to be about western style theme-park or pseudo sandbox vs eastern style grind fests combined with idiotic policies in order to try and make pvp fair in a horribly ineffective way.
But this is about standing behind a mob and making numbers vs. a game with action, movement in combat, and dodging attacks?
Pretty valid tbh, it's akin to comparing cRPGs to aRPGs. Diablo wasn't better than Baldur's Gate because it was faster paced. They're different approaches, and both are valid. The OP is talking about the lack of Baldur's Gates in MMOs (lack of Everquests, my analogy is basically pointless but whatever).
I'd be happy with an MMO with fun loot at this point. There's nothing exciting about drops in these games anymore.
So basically, you're looking for:
- A Dungeons&Dragons classical interpretation (or their remote descendants)
- With a focus on strategical/tactical combat rather than action combat
- And, what? Solo? (you seemed to imply solo camping and harvesting)
Then there's nothing. Probably not even in the indy scene.
One of the big problem is that, if you're going to the solo route (or offer a lot of solo stuff), then it's immensely better to offer action-based combat rather than tactical/strategic because slow-paced combat when you're alone is immensely boring. The EQ-style of combat you seem to be looking for is suited for group/social group settings in which you want/need to chat during combat. If you're going to solo camp your mineshaft or make your way to the next wood grove to harvest, it's not that good.
WoW-style rotation is probably the best compromise you can have between action-y combat for solo stuff and some tactical choices for group longer fights. But it's still primarily oriented for solo/"grouped solo" combat style.
You are only satisfied with 1999 everquest? have you tried p99?
It's debatable if anyone will ever make a non-action MMO again, and I'm fairly certain that no one will ever again make a game where it takes a group of players 1+ minute to kill regular mobs for exp.
It is almost entirely a cost vs. expected return issue. There likely aren't enough players willing to pay for what it would cost to make such a game to the quality level everyone seems to want, see project Gorgon for example.
Also, I am curious, what is "fun" loot to everyone?
Fun loot for me would be something that is difficult to get (rare drop from rare mob) but that gives a noticable boost in either Power or Utility, that may even be a bit overpowered for your level. With Utility I mean something like Journeymans boots, or a weapon with a Snare Proc that can be used by a Class that does not have snare abilities itself. A boost in Power would simply be a weapon or item that has great stats compared to the more mundane drops in the world. Reed Belt (+6 Wis) comes to mind, drop from an ultra rare mob in EQ. It could also be a rare drop that is needed for a difficult quest that yields a powerful reward. I.e. Epic Quests in EQ.
A fun drop should be a bit like the jackpot, in some way.
Not gonna happen anymore, especially since we are currently living in the "crafted goods should be best" era. Also, seems like game-companies are mortally afraid of creating "have's and have-not's" in their game.
I guess the Manastone in EQ is an example of how such loot can be rather unbalancing though. Which is why they nerfed it.
Last edited by Treesong; 04-18-2016 at 01:23 PM.
Anything other than the same shit you got last level with slightly better stats. I want boots with run speed, belts with haste, weapons that proc shit. Stuff that makes a game more fun to play, that's fun loot. The kind of stuff you'd see in the Everquest series or just about any actual RPG. Running around a zone getting token drops that turn into randomized gear isn't fun. Getting a piece of gear at level 5 and upgrading it to +15 at end game isn't fun loot either. Seriously, I have the best weapon in BDO and I'm like "whoopdy fucking doo" because it's boring loot. WoW's loot has gotten so boring they've just decided to go with one weapon per class next expanison. One fucking weapon. Yay! Where's the fun in that? Where's the excitement of getting a kick ass weapon drop? Whose gonna let out a "fuck yeah!" and have a big goofy grin on their face when they "upgrade" that one item?...no one. Getting a kick ass drop used to be like opening a present on Christmas morning, now it's like going to the grocery store and picking up all the items on your list...so much fun!
If you didn't have the no Asians clause and some perverse aversion to action games black desert fulfills all your other desires. It's even euro style midieval fantasy based. But its made by asians
I don't really see Black Desert as being Euro style. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see Euro styled MMORPGs as having gnomes, dwarves, and elves that can be wizards, necromancers, Paladins, Fallen Paladins (shadow Knights), warriors, rogues, and clerics.
Plus people seem to act like non-action based MMORPGs some how provide no challenge and just boring game play. I argue that having to manage what spells/abilities you use, when you use them, and how often you use them in differing scenarios is more fun than bashing the same five keys over and over in action-based games. Is there really that much challenge in hitting dodge, attack, Dodge, attack?
I'm know I'm rambling on at this point, but there is one more thing. I believe that game designers have forgotten the most important part of MMORPGs; the characters. The whole point of an RPG is character development. The character you play is supposed to learn and grow throughout their experiences. Therefore, a level 50 warrior should mitigate damage better because the character has developed those skills over time. By making the MMORPGs action -based, the character is only as good as the person playing the character at any given time. Therefore, the character has not developed. The player has. That's fine for an action game, but that is directly in contrast with the basic fundamentals of an RPG. They should call them MMOGs rather than MMORPGs. They should be considered a completely different genre of game.
Your argument also doesn't make much sense about the character vs. player. Let's use a pseudo-real life example: You have 10 people who all train in swordfighting for 20 years, and another group of 10 who train for 15 years. They all do the exact same training, conditioning, weapon proficiency, etc. They all learn from the same teachers. By your example, the people who trained 20 years would always beat the 15 year folks. Your example also makes a base assumption that the 20 year folks are all equally skilled. But we know that isn't a guarantee. There will always be people who are stronger, faster, smarter, or just more innately talented than their peers. The current crop of games just allows players to express that in a natural fashion.
Not sure why you keep calling it euro style. Only game that meets your requirements is eq, and thats an American game.
Black desert has humans, elves, and giants as playable characters, with dark elves coming in a future expansion. It has orcs, dwarves, shai (halflings) as friendly npcs. it has goblins orcs trolls ogres etc as monsters. It's genre is European medieval high fantasy. Just it's made by asians which you can't tolerate for some reason.
You basically only want eq.
If you consider vanguard as the spiritual successor to eq, rather the game vanguard wanted to be, black desert is your game. Its every thing vanguard wanted to be and more
Last edited by Sylas; 04-19-2016 at 04:22 AM.
Where to even start?
Everquest was an open world "feeling" game with minimal quests, merely a handful for certain items. The game didn't feature much at all, just group pve grinding for experience, soloing was either not possible for most classes or ostracising from the community for the few classes that could pull it off. no raids, just 2 open world bosses. It offered a small amount of crafting/tradeskills but these were not implemented as well as was originally intended. Starter gear (banded, bronze, etc) were common enough drops but most gear were rare drops from specific mobs or mob types, very few items were NODROP (Bound), most gear was tradeable/sellable to other players, most gear could be used on lower level characters (ie twinking). There were active, regional player created marketplaces (such as Gfay, North Freeport, or East Commonlands Tunnels, depending on your server). Because it was open world it featured dozens of locations players could go to adventure and level up for any given level range.
Vanguard was made by the same guy for a lot more time and money but it was also released well before it was complete. It didn't have any raids or end game at all, or even really any post 40 content because it was rushed out the door. But ignoring that and focusing on sub-40 content: It had quests but they were mostly for items, not for leveling. Instead if also featured group focused PVE grinding to level, though like quests, for modern convenience it allowed classes to solo, but it was far more efficient to group. It further fleshed out crafting and had "spheres of influence" separating the game systems into adventurer levels, crafting levels, and added another aspect called diplomacy, that is lore and friendship with various NPCs, as diplomacy levels. These systems were put in to flesh out the game more, make it feel more like a world, and not just grinding mobs for exp. But they were not as well integrated into the core game as they would of liked, because they ran out of money.
Black Desert is the evolution of Vanguard. It has all the spheres of influence and more. Gathering, Production, workers, trade routes, diplomacy, banking, knowledge and lores. they are all present but are more thoroughly integrated into the core game experience. It has quests, but not for loot or leveling, they are mostly for the other aspects of the game (Contribution) and rarely for skills, which is tied to but not directly connected to leveling. It allows you to solo, but it's far more efficient to group. It even turns the page back to EQ with both experience loss on death and hell levels. It has both group focused boss scrolls which satisfies the "instanced" crowd who want on demand content and world bosses with hellalong respawn times (though not quite the 7 days of EQ). Few items are bound, you camp for rare drops from specific mob types, can sell and buy most every item, twink alts, etc, with regional marketplaces. Because it is open world it features dozens of locations players could go to adventure and level up for any given level range. Starter gear is common enough drops from specific mobs. It adds an RNG system to upgrade this gear.
All three games were worlds rather than theme parks, they all had "dungeons" which were just places like caves, castles, or underground tunnels where mobs were congested that had the possibility of dropping rare loot, but where not what modern MMO players refer to as "dungeons" heavily scripted encounters or instanced content that was ran through from beginning to end, they were camped for experience and drops.
What you did in EQ was get in a group, turn on autoattack, sit around and type in group chat, while pressing a button every 6 seconds, grinding out mobs for exp and loot
What you did in Vanguard was get in a group, sit around and shoot the shit on teamspeak, constantly pressing buttons for your hotbar rotation, grinding out mobs for exp and loot. If you got bored of doing that, you could craft or talk to NPCs as an alternate style of gamplay.
What you do in Black Desert is get in a group, shoot the shit on teamspeak, action mmo dodging, rounding up mobs, executing combos, etc grinding out mobs for exp and loot. You can do a lot more of the alternate style of gameplay, and most of it can be done while you are killing mobs.
Last edited by Sylas; 04-19-2016 at 07:46 AM.
I believe the statement of "European" means traditional high fantasy, not any sort of "designed by Europeans" type mentality.
Also, EQ had camps because doing other shit was inferior in every possible way at specific levels. The quests completed in EQ, including Epics, would be 1000x more the specific repeatable leveling quests. So saying that it had "few quests" just really translates to "no variety" since everyone who had access to certain quests pretty much did those until they were no longer viable. Deathfist belts, bone chips, snake parts, etc.
And if you think that having a "raid" requires some sort of weird designation, I would ask you how many times you one grouped Vox or Naggy prior to Kunark Fear/Hate/Sky release. Or how many times you one grouped Inny/Eye/CT before Kunark release. Yeah, just because we, as a gaming entity, coined the term, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Rose tinted goggles up in this mofaka. No idea how close BD is, but your presentation of EQ is pretty much off by a large margin.
if BD doesn't have dungeons and relies on PVP for endgame, it is pretty much the antithesis of EQ and reminds me a lot more of lineage 2 - but even that had dungeons.
I'm not even sure what to think of a game without dungeons...
Last edited by Quineloe; 04-19-2016 at 09:41 AM.
The only thing I can think of that makes Vanguard and BDO similar are the diplomacy/amenity systems, and boats, other than that I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. And since Tuco already said it better than I could I'll just steal his posts from the BDO thread as my reply:
Basically other than the "feels" I don't see how anyone can remotely claim these games are similar enough to be calling BDO the spritual successor unless they've never played any of them.
you all are taking crazy pills if you can't see the evolution from EQ > Vanguard > Black Desert. If BD doesn't have dungeons than neither did EQ or Vanguard, not sure why you keep saying it doesn't have dungeons?
It doesn't have an NPC you queue up with and are teleported into an instanced dungeon with a bunch of randoms to complete objectives in a linear, quest based fashion like WoW+. It has underground, castle, and enclosed areas with mobs that drop rare loot. It doesn't have many named, like EQ, but the camping for rare loot is the same.
Also not sure what you are talking about 1 grouping world bosses? where did that come from. From Vanilla through Velious (when I quit playing EQ) there were world bosses. Sometimes but not always you had shit to kill to get to the world bosses, vox was low level goblins, nagafen had high level fire giants and lava spiders and shit. But you took as many players as you wanted to and threw them at the bosses until you collected loot. Same as BDO. The bosses had really long respawns (EQ was week, BDO is 8-24 hours). Later on they added some planes, fear, hate, sky, and then more complex bosses that took a lot of clearing to get to like TOV etc so we can start to call those raids. But it was still just world bosses, and usually they were in your regular grinding areas like Trakanon below sebilis but some where just out in the world by their lonesome like that one dragon in wakening lands.
You can say they are similar like Apples and Oranges are similar, but that means every themepark MMO are cellphones and balloons. So yeah, since they are all fruit thus far more similar than anything else in the genre you could possibly compare them to.
Regarding Tuco's points:
It takes longer to walk across the world of BDO than it did to cross across EQ, including loading times. Yeah it has horses for faster travel. EQ had teleports. BD's world is and feels larger.
1. EQ had forced grouping for most classes. VG had no forced grouping, but it was more efficient to group. BDO is the same as VG.1. No forced grouping.
2. No named spawn camping
3. No raiding.
4. Completely different leveling and gearing system.
5. Action style combat.
6. No support classes.
2. EQ had named spawn camping for rare loot. VG didn't really as far as I can recall, just rare loot drops but not from specific named. BDO is the same as VG.
3. EQ eventually had raiding, but for a long time just had a few world bosses. VG eventually had raiding(?). BDO has a few world bosses, same as EQ
4. EQ you grinded for exp. VG you grinded for exp. BDO you grinded for exp. Gearing system is nearly identical to EQ+ with asian RNG upgrades.
5. EQ had autoattack, caster's were the closest to "hotbar" combat as you could mem 8 spells and cast them. VG evolved from that to hotbar combat. BDO evolved from that to action combat.
6. This is just the evolution of letting every class solo. EQ had role specific classes that required a group to function, so strong support but could not solo. VG everyone could solo, but still had roles, including tank/heal/support/dps. BDO everyone can solo but still has roles, including tank/support/dps.
7. Ignoring PVP servers, yeah this is different. you can pvp after level 45 in BDO.
Not saying they are the exact same. Just that there is a clear line of evolution from EQ to VG to BDO, incorporating modern advances where it's an improvement (and some cases where its not, like all the anti-bot measures that kill player trading, etc) and keeping and even reviving a lot of the old school MMO elements where modern games had all but abandoned them. Even VG which was the direct spiritual successor to EQ abandoned a real death penalty and softcaps ie harsh exp curves ie hell levels, where BDO brought that shit back.
Remember roaming around Rathe mountain for days looking for that stupid random spawning, wandering NPC to turn in for jboots? (after they removed the drop from najena obviously) Never thought I'd see shit like that again in a modern MMO, until BDO. Remember camping gnolls in highpass for days for a PGT? Or south karana for a pegi cloak? or Lower guk for guise?
Yeah its the same, just for tree belt or ogre rings or mark of shadows.
Last edited by Sylas; 04-19-2016 at 02:30 PM.
There aren't many surprises in games for experienced players. I am not sure that is anyone's fault. In someone's first mmo, every little aspect of the game is a discovery. Loot, agro, crafting, travel options, etc.
People have played so many games by now it is next to impossible to to wow anyone (pun intended).
Maybe developer costs need to come down drastically before completely new systems can be tried?
This game is not really about gear. You can buy the best gear at lv 10 and then slowly upgrade it. This games entire point is about guild vs guild PvP.
I feel like I'm here trying to explain how Eve Online is the spiritual successor to Ultima Online, to the only 5 people on the planet that never heard of that comparison and all you got to say is "nuh uh, eve has space ships. ultima didn't have spaceships". And the more I try to illustrate to you how comparable they are, I find out that you fucks didn't even play UO until years after trammel so you coming up with "eve has pvp, that's nothing like UO".
Where they are different, the games are VERY different. If you were arguing from those points, I could see where you were coming from. And some of those aspects are deal breakers for certain people, so I could see how you would write them off as "different" despite them sharing more in common than they differ.
And yeah after a few years and a few expansion packs under their respective belts, eq did focus more on multigroup raiding, where BDO is more PVP oriented. But they began with the same virtual world bedrock. People who say the game is "nothing" like EQ are people who didn't even play EQ until after PoP or beyond.
But for the most part you faggots aren't even talking about the HUGE differences between the games. You are arguing the minutia of the color and shape of the leaves in the Forest of EQ vs VG vs BDO, unable to recognize that they are all forests, and the rest of the MMO genre is a fucking shopping mall.
As an example: gearing/loot? How are they nothing alike? Did you camp specific mobs for hours in the hope that a spawn would drop rare loot? "Oh but in eq it had named mobs (mostly)" "oh but BDO has a #asian rng upgrade system". Yeah those are differences. But they have far more similarities than any other WoW+ game. Pray tell, which specific mob/mob type did you grind for hours in the hope of looting an "Adjective Cloak of Animal" in WoW? and once you got that slot defining rare drop item, you totally wore it for fucking ever, 10, 20, 30 levels? It lasted a whole expansion or two? Yeah eventually in EQ you replaced it and in BDO you upgrade it but tell me how you handed that same item down to your alt in WoW+ game? oh you vendored it for 2 silver cus everythings bound. Yeah you're right gear system is totally different.
Last edited by Sylas; 04-20-2016 at 06:32 AM.
Also, nobody brought up UO or Eve, your reference falls short because you're comparing (again) apples to oranges. Yes, they are both mmos. Yes, they both have players killing npcs. A lot of the similarity stops there, so the talk of spiritual successor is basically nonsense. Also, Vanguard most certainly did have designated group and raid areas. BDO is a PVP game. EQ/VG were not. The comparison between them is immediately meaningless.
WoW(vanilla-wrath) had a lot more in common with EQ than BDO apparently does. This includes farming specific mobs for specific loot (I'm not sure if you've ever played any of the games you were referencing, but VG had specific drops in specific dungeons, which 99/100 were completely uncontested so effectively "instanced" versions, like WoW) and the fact that EQ was not a PVP game. The endgame for BDO is PVP, and it most certainly was not for EQ or VG. So telling someone that "hey this game is a lot like these, check it out!" when fundamentally the focus is entirely different, is dumb.
Also, lawl at "PoP or beyond." You directly reference raiding concepts that directly occurred in PoP and beyond, while showing an obvious lack of knowledge of how it worked in the first 4 years of EQ.
TLDR: Other people should not trust your opinion on this matter, due to an obvious disconnect between reality and what you "think" you saw in EQ and VG and how that applies to BDO.
I watched a couple gameplay videos of BDO, so much asian, much wow. I have no idea how you would recommend that to someone who pretty much is saying he wants to play EQ again.
The spiritual successor to EQ would take into account the entire game up to the point that development started on said successor. You can't just say EQ launched like this and act like everything that came after launch didn't exist.
And you do realize that Black Desert has had multiple expansions and is still and will always be a guild vs guild PvP game, right? There is no "you can" PvP, that's the entire fucking point of end game in BDO.
Half the shit that you think these games have in common you could attribute to a dozen other MMOs, btw, many of which are far closer in end game design to EQ or Vanguard than BDO will ever be.
You talk about minutiae all the while completely ignore the giant fucking differences in design that make your claims sound ridiculous. You clearly don't know shit about what BDO is at all because you seem to think that those first 45 levels are what the game is about when it's clearly not. No one, who knows anything about EQ or Vanguard, would call a guild vs guild based PvP game the spiritual successor to either of them.
yeah i'm done, too much retard in this thread. I never said they were the same game, only that they have far more similarities than differences, particular in regards to being virtual worlds rather than themeparks.
There are a mountain of similarities, and a small number of differences. Those differences are deal breakers for some, but not for others. If you played EQ in Vanilla you see it, if you didn't, you don't.
Nah, you're just not remembering anything you are referencing correctly. Which makes you an unreliable narrator to your own stance, and thus inherently untrustworthy.
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to at least two of the games you are talking about.
Edit: And I mean that in the warmest manner. I don't know what you think you remember, but EQ and VG is not it.
Last edited by Rezz; 04-20-2016 at 09:57 AM.
Didnt Lord British make the Shroud of the Avatar game or something that is close to UO? I have not been following it but maybe that is something to look into?
It isn't, unless you're looking to be disappointed.
I remember when Sylas was convinced EQN was going to be full on open world PvP focused and made fun of the PVE folks for thinking other wise then had a total meltdown when the details got released of EQN. Not surprising to see him go full retard in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)