Quote:
Originally Posted by PlsNoBan
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Because it was literally the only option available with the technology and knowledge available in 1999 perhaps? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Classic EQ got some things right and it's still near and dear to my heart in a lot of ways. At the end of the day though it's still technically a failed mutation in a long evolutionary history of MMO's and video games in general. It's extremely foolish to imply that because of spawn times and no instances that must mean Brad sat in his chair thinking to himself "Man I really hope people line up at the snow line in Kael and stare at a screenshare/bind sight for 16 hours to run a preplanned footrace they've practiced hundreds of times for a chance to kill a giant with a guild of 70 people that drops 2 items". No chance things just worked out that way coincidentally and it had some negative side effects they didn't anticipate? That they fairly quickly started addressing via GM rotations on many servers and eventually instances?
There's a reason there has been ZERO other games that do this and I hate to break it to you.... It's not because EQ did it right and everybody else is wrong for 23 years. |
I'm not sure how you're defining a game doing something right or wrong though outside of just sub numbers I guess? So whatever a game does, if it has high subs it's doing it right? I guess in a sense it is.
EQ2 quickly became a WoW clone though and never even came close to the popularity of WoW itself. The warcraft franchise and blizzard as a developer already had a TON of name recognition and credibility. WoW blew EQ away in terms of sub numbers more because of the lore that people were invested in already, rather than some brilliant new game mechanic. EQ2 should have also blown EQ1 numbers away if that were the case, since it was very much like WoW, but it didn't at all.