What happened with the poppulation

[Roth]

Originally Posted by Tilien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never argued against playing EQ or that it's fun: I enjoy it and play on both Teal and Blue currently.

For your first point: I think a lot of developers anticipate and build for emergent game play, emergent gameplay is a good element that a lot of games try to promote. In fact, the amount of emergent game play/flexibility in classes in EQ seems a lot more limited than many other games IMO. That being said: EQ did nerf things, and not just emergent elements. And because we're playing in a specific time line we don't see all the nerfs and balances that the developers took.

And I would agree EQ tends to be simpler than modern MMORPGs, allowing it to be a little easier to play casually while advancing (even without a tutorial) and a more relaxed pace for an MMORPG, but many games in general you can simply set your own pace no matter what. That being said: I would argue that content pacing is *very* slow compared to other games. You can spend hours (days) sitting in one spot waiting for access to a specific monster or piece of loot, and generally you do this at a point where combat against the target is easy or totally trivialized making the waiting, not the fighting, the task that is being rewarded. Sure high end items/raid bosses etc. drop loot without being easy fights but generally rare drops from monsters leveled 20-40 will be camped by people who can farm them with little to no risk, which brings up the slow pacing again: not only can it take hours or days of camping your monster but that can be camped by an individual or rotation of individuals which locks out content to you.

Is it the worst game? No, not even in the same dumpster fire ballpark as ET.

Overall I'd say it's about average in terms of mechanics and gameplay, and there's nothing wrong with liking a game that isn't the best of the best... but arguing it's significantly above average seems a bit wonky. There are reasons EQ died out and WoW went on strong beyond just SOE's internal politics. And what one person (or 2500 people) enjoy does not dictate what good, general gameplay principles are. Feel free to enjoy games with bad design principles, not everything you enjoy has to be the best type of that thing.

The reality is there aren't better alternatives to eq. Wow is not even remotely the same experience as eq. Elder scrolls online isn't even playable. You're using a fake metric of good or bad as in "more advanced, easier, more fluid" = better when in reality whether something is good or bad is based on the value of the entire experience. Based on your metrics all the transformer movies would be the "best" movies since they spend money on known actors and special effects.

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by Roth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing that makes eq a "game" is that it serves no real purpose and it's on the computer and you do stuff for enjoyment. Trying to argue that eq is a bad game is stupid because a game doesn't have to do anything besides be enjoyable or satisfying. Better graphics doesn't make a game superior for example unless it actually makes the game itself more fun in some way.

Eq mechanics/gameplay do a lot to make the game more satisfying to play. Sitting on a boat for 30 minutes sucks in the moment but it adds value to other aspects of the game.

I want to discuss something you said specifically: You said people are trying to push for changes in p99 that would make it worse. If they would enjoy those changes... then how does that make the game worse?

Although arguing that gameplay has no design principles and is purely in the eye of the beholder is a philosophical one, you don't seem to honestly hold that position.

[Roth]

Originally Posted by Tilien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want to discuss something you said specifically: You said people are trying to push for changes in p99 that would make it worse. If they would enjoy those changes... then how does that make the game worse?

Although arguing that gameplay has no design principles and is purely in the eye of the beholder is a philosophical one, you don't seem to honestly hold that position.

Your entire thought process is that eq as a game is just bad and was always bad. My thought process is that eq was a good game, and is/can still be a good game with the correct rulesets. For example item recharging... this wasn't a thing in 2002. Allowing it in 2019 fundamentally changes the experience. The 2019 version should be made to match the 2000 experience as much as possible in areas where small changes do not impact the bigger picture.

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by Roth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The reality is there aren't better alternatives to eq. Wow is not even remotely the same experience as eq. Elder scrolls online isn't even playable. You're using a fake metric of good or bad as in "more advanced, easier, more fluid" = better when in reality whether something is good or bad is based on the value of the entire experience. Based on your metrics all the transformer movies would be the "best" movies since they spend money on known actors and special effects.

No, all transformer movies are the best because they capitalize on cinematic techniques that maximize enjoyment... as demonstrated by their commercial success.

WoW has clearly been a more enjoyable game because it is still a commercial success.

I don't think games being easier makes them better, in fact EQ is very easy and simply imo. The hardest part is waiting.

Question: Why does your personal enjoyment define what is good more than the enjoyment of millions of people? How are you an expert? Maybe, just maybe, we both enjoy something that is subpar, unusual, or generally not graded on the same scale as other things. And that's okay.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Tilien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Overall I'd say it's about average in terms of mechanics and gameplay, and there's nothing wrong with liking a game that isn't the best of the best... but arguing it's significantly above average seems a bit wonky. .

I agree with this assessment. You no doubt notice I'm not nor have ever been one of the folks claiming EQ to be one of the greatest games ever or any similar sentiments (it isn't)--it's simply a game I like, out of many, and one which synchs with my current middle-age needs fairly well.

I had ET for the Atari VCS by the way. It was bad, but I've seen worse. It was at least playable with out too many glitches standing in the way. I had other atari games that I felt were worse.

Danth

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by Roth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The reality is there aren't better alternatives to eq. Wow is not even remotely the same experience as eq. Elder scrolls online isn't even playable. You're using a fake metric of good or bad as in "more advanced, easier, more fluid" = better when in reality whether something is good or bad is based on the value of the entire experience. Based on your metrics all the transformer movies would be the "best" movies since they spend money on known actors and special effects.

Fucking A.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by Rhyltran [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People compare different tabletop rpg's to each other and call them games as well. Technically you roll dice and have character sheets. You also roleplay but some are considered objectively better than others. While renaissance may not be a game the fact is EQ is a game and immersion is part of it. So I would definitely call it a good game.

As for what it has over other games when gameplay is concerned? It's not so balanced that it's homogeneous. Allowing different ways to solve different problems. There are so many different styles of soloing for example. I would argue the ability for an enchanter to change their form and access locations they wouldn't otherwise to be part of gameplay. In many games this would be considered "Stealth" gameplay. It isn't just limited to enchanters, of course, which is why I used them as examples.

The game doesn't just not hold your hand but provides you more tools to achieve the things you want to do. There's less restrictions. Sure, waiting for something for hours to spawn may not be engaging but the entire game isn't about that either. That's no different than waiting for another week or so for a raid lockout isn't engaging or fun either which other mmorpgs use aplenty and rare drops aren't limited to just EQ (many games have drops that are in the 0.01% drop range.)

The fact is EQ is a game. That provides many things that other games don't and has things that are superior to other games (lore and immersion.) so for those players where these things matter. I'd argue it's subjectively a better game than the alternatives. After all.. I am enjoying my so far brief time back here than them. In the end though we're both EQ players and I think we're arguing semantics. Haha. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wasn't arguing it wasn't a game period, the renn faire argument was just that saying "this is a great game because of it's immersion" is a bad argument because lots of things are immersive without being games.

I have nothing wrong with saying "I enjoy EQ more than WoW", but the post I was responding to was specifically saying other people's recommendations for changes would make the game worse.

If you want to argue a game's "goodness" is purely subjective that is fine and I'm not gonna really argue with you, but if you're going to argue that there is some objectivity or some way to state that something someone enjoys is "worse" then I think you're wrong. That is what Roth was saying, that by implementing a change other people would want they would make EQ worse.

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's simply a game I like, out of many, and one which synchs with my current middle-age needs fairly well.

And I never said there's anything wrong with that. I love the game, keep on enjoying it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Mercius]

Morell Thule is known as the Lord of Dreams. He is one of two children created by the strange combination of power between Quellious the Tranquil and Cazic-Thule the Faceless. It is said that Quellious and Cazic-Thule battled for eons over the realm of dreams. Neither ever gained any advantage over the other, so each sacrificed a portion of their power in an attempt to claim the realm. Morell Thule, much like his mother, seeks peace in the dream world. His sister, Terris-Thule, is known as the Dream Scorcher and seeks to torment the unconcious mortals as her father would through fear and terror.

[TripSin]

Originally Posted by Roth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The reality is there aren't better alternatives to eq. Wow is not even remotely the same experience as eq. Elder scrolls online isn't even playable. You're using a fake metric of good or bad as in "more advanced, easier, more fluid" = better when in reality whether something is good or bad is based on the value of the entire experience. Based on your metrics all the transformer movies would be the "best" movies since they spend money on known actors and special effects.

OK boomer. EverQuest is the best game of all time and the best game that will ever be. All the games these young kids are playing these days are absolute trash. Only your warped, ridiculous subjective opinion matters.