EverQuest: A Retrospective Look At Why I’m So Great And This Game Sucks

[Strazos]

English, do you speak it?

The Warrens? The place with the Kobolds? I think that's been in the game much longer than expansion 7. I played there when Velious was out.

He said he played there when Velious was out, not WHEN it came out. That would seem to say it came out at some point in time after the release of Velious, but not very long after that point.

[cmlancas]

It was in between Luclin and Velious. It may have been during Luclin, but not after, only because I quit after Luclin came out. Either way, this is turning into a sissy slapfight, and I'd rather not go there.


(But Tao is still wrong)   

[Murgos]

It started out as a sissy slapfight.

"It's not a review, he only talked about his impressions of the game as it is now!"  is arguing because he likes the game but feels he has to use a red herring (that you need to consider historical context to appreciate the current experience) to justify his opinion.

I had a lvl 54 warrior which I stopped playing shortly after Kunark (and made a sweet 1500 bucks off of when I quit).  The state of the game now limits my interest in original EQ far more than any positive experiences I may have had 6 or 7 years ago.

[raydeen]

I fondly remember the Warrens and the adjacent zone (can't remember what it was called now). Used to practically live out there with my druid. And the Warrens was possibly the best source of free booze there was. All the kobolds drank like fishes. I spent two hours in there one day just getting bottles of adult beverage for a guild picnic. Then one guildy drank himself to death. :D Another set up a duel between herself and herself (two boxer). The guild mistress (druid) tried dueling one of the higher mages and she accidentally dotted herself. I think she was drunk in game and in RL. Happy days. Just don't see that in WoW these days.

[Tale]

Thanks for writing the review I hoped for :)

[Falconeer]

I fondly remember the Warrens and the adjacent zone (can't remember what it was called now). Used to practically live out there with my druid. And the Warrens was possibly the best source of free booze there was. All the kobolds drank like fishes. I spent two hours in there one day just getting bottles of adult beverage for a guild picnic. Then one guildy drank himself to death. :D Another set up a duel between herself and herself (two boxer). The guild mistress (druid) tried dueling one of the higher mages and she accidentally dotted herself. I think she was drunk in game and in RL. Happy days. Just don't see that in WoW these days.

Haha. Who cares? It sucks NOW, so please STOP REMEMBERING FUN THE WRONG WAY.

[Rasix]

"Remember when" is the lowest form of conversation.   

[Engels]

So an 8 year old game sucks by today's standards. What next, a Pong review?

[Falconeer]

So an 8 year old game sucks by today's standards. What next, a Pong review?

What? Shut up! STOP POSTING THE WRONG WAY!  (Oh sorry but I am having fun doing this)

[Samwise]

People are still paying money for EQ.  Once people stop paying for it, you can declare it too old to be worth making fun of any more.  Until then, 

[tkinnun0]

So an 8 year old game sucks by today's standards. What next, a Pong review?

Uhh, 1999 saw the release of games such as Rollcage, Midtown Madness, Kingpin, C&C Tiberium Sun, Darkstone, Mechwarrior 3, Hidden and Dangerous and System Shock 2, all of which I remember enjoying. And I hear Planescape: Torment was good, too. I posit that all of those were better games than Everquest. But don't take my word for it, here's what Gamespot had to say:

"[EQ] is loaded with problems"
"at its best, EverQuest is picturesque and realistic. Then again, other parts of the game look silly or downright bad"
"all of [the audio is] repetitive, so you'll be turning down the volume before long"
"you can't realistically cultivate more than one or two characters"
"EverQuest isn't for casual game players, as it demands a huge time commitment"
"gaining experience is a terrifically boring process"

and

"Then again, if you're picky about details, EverQuest may not be for you. There's no denying that the game is very rough around the edges, and you'll know it from the moment you start the game and must sift through its lackluster menus. The actual interface isn't much better, the manual is even worse, the game is loaded with hilariously bad textual errors, and all in all, it's guaranteed to frustrate you regularly. If nothing else, you should expect to get killed a lot, at which point you must make the arduous journey to retrieve your belongings from your corpse. As you grow more powerful, you'll die less frequently, but you'll lose experience when you do, and reclaiming your pricey equipment will be much more critical. It'll also take a lot longer to heal all your hit points between fights, since you'll have more of them, yet your healing rate remains constant."

As an RPG EverQuest wasn't very good. Their saving grace was always the MMO.

[lamaros]

As an X Y wasn't that great. The saving grace was the fact it was Z. Still, for hindsight perspectives, lets just judge it on X.

Brilliant.

[Hoax]

So an 8 year old game sucks by today's standards. What next, a Pong review?

What? Shut up! STOP POSTING THE WRONG WAY!  (Oh sorry but I am having fun doing this)

Actually it pretty much sucks by all standards.  I'm sorry I played EQ because it was The MMO for a bit, I didn't get to L50, it was a painful painful game to play.  But for real, there are people still paying a monthly fee to play this game.  If that doesn't call for mockery what does?

I would review 3d-pong and point to the fact that it is awesome as proof that those guy(s)/gal(s) deserve to get VC money to make the next big AAA MMO over everyone whose gotten $$$ to make the next big AAA MMO whose name isn't Blizzard and/or CCP.  But what would that have to do with anything you say?  Who cares because your idiots defending EQ1!!!eleventy!!@1!

[Falconeer]

You are all still missing the point.

EQ brought to the masses the concept of coop videogaming. Suddenly it wasn't anymore about hotseats or a handful of players over a slow network. It was about hundreds massively cooperating to beat the game, and EQ was pretty good at its job.

I laugh at those of you who loved it and spent time with it in 1999 and now say it sucks. Congratulations, you've just been Schildified. EQ rocked when it came out and that's why you played it. And actually it kept rocking until imitators were able to come up with more polished clones of it.

P.S edit: Hoax, "defending" EQ1 is different from defending diku. And the fact that EQ1 was a great game doesn't mean they should keep redoing it. I don't judge game, books, or movies based and what sprung from them and I am afraid this is the mistake you and a few others keep doing.

[schild]

Falconeer.

I was in the EQ beta. I thought the game was a steaming pile of shit from Day 1.

I didn't make it far enough to find fun. Even back then I felt fun should find me.

People who say EQ was good as a game absolutely fail on the 'game judgement' meter, because it wasn't. It was only good at attaching a fantasy grind to a chat room. Everything else was smoke and mirrors.

[Falconeer]

Why once again it sounds like "Schild didn't like it THEN it was obviously steaming shit"?

Many great games are just a mystical mix of simple ingredients and EQ was definitely one of those.
Fantasy Grind + Chat + Massive Coopeartive Challenges + Ok Lore = 1999 fun.

[schild]

How many times do I have to point out that Planescape and Deus Ex came out in 1999? (well, deus ex was 2000, when most of you all were still fucking around in EQ1).

[Falconeer]

Neither of those two let people play together against the machine. And it's not like anyone is saying they weren't awesome.

Anyway fine.

[Strazos]

A lot of people liked EQ back in the day, because....

Back in the day, people were new to online gaming and naive.


It's not 1999 anymore.



I mean, FFS, I took a rogue, a ROGUE, to level 65. Name a class that was more painful to play.

[Hoax]

The only thing EQ did was capitalize on the fact that then and now there are many people who really want to be involved in a cool online world.  Where their avatar interacts in cool ways with others and the world itself.

EQ is only noteworthy because back then 500k+ people were willing to try anything that promised some kind of virtual experience.

WoW is noteworthy because it is good enough that many of those 500k+ can stomach playing it even though they are (or should be) burned out on the Diku mechanics.  It also introduced god knows how many people to the quest for a good MMO, or true 3d web, depending on what you think people are actually looking for when they play MMO's.

Neither are special games, both suck when you compare them to actual games that are fun to play (read: games that aren't MMO's).  Being the first piece of shit smelled by gamers doesn't deserve special credit, being the most polished piece of shit ever to reflect light doesn't deserve much more special credit.

I will maintain until I die that nobody plays Diku's for the gameplay, its the social/achiever bullshit.  There are fighting games so good that you can enjoy them on a visceral level playing practice mode against a computer that is just standing there.  Its that much fun to watch your character respond to your will and to master new methods of dealing out punishment.  EQ/L2/AO/WoW/Whatever are so fucking far from this it is staggering.

It was only good at attaching a fantasy grind to a chat room.

I can't wait for Chris Hansen to start fucking with WoW players...  That'd be awesome.

[lamaros]

EQ brought to the masses the concept of coop videogaming.

The "masses"? You have to be kidding me. The first introduction to "coop videogaming"? Please.

I've never played EQ1. I was playing MUDs around that time and remember people quitting them to play EQ and then coming back.

I loved RPGs, I loved online gaming, I loved certain MUDs that were similar in ways to what EQ1 supposedly was. But I remember it having bullshit system requirements and not that great art design coupled with rather boring seeming gameplay and I never even bothered trying it.

Persist in thinking EQ1 was a fun game if you like, but if you're not prepared to admit that it was because you have poor taste or had never played a multiplayer game before yourself, and not because EQ1 was actually awesome, then you're saying just as much useless rubbish as this review was.

[Margalis]

Coop gaming? How about Ikari Warriors?

Fail.

[schild]

How about the Original Mario Bros? Not that anyone really liked it.


Or maybe...


pong?

[Falconeer]

A lot of people liked EQ back in the day, because....

Back in the day, people were new to online gaming and naive.


It's not 1999 anymore.

Exactly, so what's the point of judging it by today standards?
It's not 1949 anymore. Are you supposed to write a review of the Dodge Coronet now? Maybe a negative and snarky one comparing it to the Caliber?

And Lamaros,

I am not kidding you. EQ's 500k sounds a little more than the handful that were playing on your MUD at the time. You didn't try it and still you are talking? And I was wondering why people were giving you a hard time.

I multiplayed since I can remember, ponged when it was time to pong and kept on multiplaying ever since. My avatar is all about multiplaying and you should know better. In fact I always had a hard time enjoying solo videogames.

And to me EverQuest will always be crap compared to Ultima Online (which is a different beast, definitely not about cooperating to beat the game), but saying it wasn't a great game is just being forgetful or just not that much into cooperative gaming. Or, third option, someone who talks without knowing. Like you, who didn't play it.

[Falconeer]

Coop gaming? How about Ikari Warriors?

Fail.

Are you kidding me? Lamaros quoted what he wanted. I said:

EQ brought to the masses the concept of coop videogaming. Suddenly it wasn't anymore about hotseats or a handful of players over a slow network. It was about hundreds massively cooperating to beat the game, and EQ was pretty good at its job.

Mass coop.

[Murgos]

Exactly, so what's the point of judging it by today standards?

Because it's today and they still want money for the game and 15 a month for the sub?  So therefore reviewing it in todays terms is relevant to todays market?

Um, Duh?

Edit:  Put it this way, how fucking stupid would it look to review it on 1999's terms now?  The thing doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[lamaros]

It's not 1949 anymore. Are you supposed to write a review of the Dodge Coronet now? Maybe a negative and snarky one comparing it to the Caliber?

I agree. Of course, because I never played it my reasoning is therefor faulty. Despite that reasoning having nothing to do with playing it..

But then, if my reasoning is faulty then you're also wrong..

And Lamaros,

I am not kidding you. EQ's 500k sounds a little more than the handful that were playing on your MUD at the time. You didn't try it and still you are talking? And I was wondering why people were giving you a hard time.

I know people who played it. I've read about it. I've played WoW and other MMOs which are supposedly 'it but better'. For my understanding of it in all those senses it was not much of a gain on a MUD. We're talking a MUD where 25 people played "coop" (co-op?) against the system. Where the server had 15k+ active users. But of course 500k spread over a number of servers divided up into raid groups of 40 is earthshatteringly different.

I multiplayed since I can remember, ponged when it was time to pong and kept on multiplaying ever since. My avatar is all about multiplaying and you should know better. In fact I always had a hard time enjoying solo videogames.

Good for you?

We can talk about a couple of things:

1. How the game plays now.
2. How the game played then.
3. How the game has changed since then.
4. How the game 'changed gaming'.

This review was 1, pre-conditioned with "it sucks" and was thus pointless.
Schild and other are saying that it sucked then. You're disagreeing. But your disagreement is not just about the game and how it played then. It's on a faulty construction of 4.

A good construction of 4 might be an interesting article.
A good construction of 3 might be an ok article.

But the original review and the shit you're spouting is neither here nor there.

[Rasix]

4. How the game 'changed gaming'.

So, you wanted a little  on EQ action. 

I still don't get what the fucking point is of all this griping.  It was a review solely for the purpose of entertainment coming from a goofy forum poster that won the sucker for free.  He had no other agenda going into the game than finding fun.  He didn't need to validate his purchase by killing 6.022 * 10^23 bats, rats and kobolds.

And fuck this 8 year old game nonsense.  It's been releasing 1-2 expansions a year since it came out and not one of them apparently improved the newbie experience.  It's had over 10 chances to become a game that could actually draw in more subscribers instead of dooming itself to death by attrition. EQ has failed miserably since other games came along and started dwindling its numbers.  EQ2 managed to reinvent itself and right the ship in short order, but apparently the hard core, mass coop pioneer decided to ignore all of the plainly obvious writing on the wall and continue to pump out content that only catered to its neckbeardy pod people.

And why the hell is Falconeer pretending like UO never existed.

Here's a free review of currently day  (pick one) UO/AC/SB/AO/Horizons:

IT SUCKS.

[Trippy]

How about the Original Mario Bros? Not that anyone really liked it.


Or maybe...


pong?

Pong wasn't co-op, it was PvP.

[Trippy]

I know people who played it. I've read about it. I've played WoW and other MMOs which are supposedly 'it but better'. For my understanding of it in all those senses it was not much of a gain on a MUD. We're talking a MUD where 25 people played "coop" (co-op?) against the system. Where the server had 15k+ active users. But of course 500k spread over a number of servers divided up into raid groups of 40 is earthshatteringly different.

EQ was different in scale. I played a lot on some of the more popular MUDs back in the day like Arctic and MPV and on those you might have 100 - 200 people total on a server during prime time spread across all the rooms. In EQ you would have 100 people in a single "room" beating on a dragon and 300+ in a single zone and thousands on the server in total.

[lamaros]

EQ was different in scale. I played a lot on some of the more popular MUDs back in the day like Arctic and MPV and on those you might have 100 - 200 people total on a server during prime time spread across all the rooms. In EQ you would have 100 people in a single "room" beating on a dragon and 300+ in a single zone and thousands on the server in total.

Medievia back in the day had up to 600 players online at the same time, had groups of 15-25 working together against the game, had 100+ players in certain zones at times, and had many other things beside.

I'm not disagreeing that EQ1 did some new things in terms of scale, just that an increase in scale isn't as amazing as Falconeer is making out (and that it's not necessarily a defense to the criticism that the game sucked).

I still don't get what the fucking point is of all this griping.  It was a review solely for the purpose of entertainment coming from a goofy forum poster that won the sucker for free.

And here I've been saying I don't understand what the point of this "EQ Sucks!" review was. Pointless griping about a pointless review? Ain't the internet grand.

[Ubvman]

You guys are arguing about EQ's past etc.

Let me clue you in - EQ has NO FUTURE.



the latest in EQ E-Peen

Thats 1000hp gear there (unaugmented) - one month into the new expansion with corresponding increases in yard trash/casual gear coming out of the zones. We used to joke about 1000hp gear and now its here. Gear like this is essentially "god-mode" to other 95% game NOT in the latest expansion (available for $39.99). The Gods of Plane of Time will be like unto Fippy running down Qeynos (EQ geeks will know what I mean).

I believe there is enough former EQ players in these forums to realize what has happened and know the implications. Its itemization gone mad.

What we have here folks is that the devs at SOE has finally hit the panic button.

When an MMOG is completely bankrupt of ideas, the easiest way out is keep printing out the currency of the realm - in EQ's case - e-peen gear. This is hyper mudflation guys.

Bankruptcy of ideas and design - the easy way out - just hyperinflate gear.
Death throes? IMHO I think yes - your mileage may vary.

[Falconeer]

And why the hell is Falconeer pretending like UO never existed.

Because they were completely different.
EQ was about beating the game together, co-operative in a much more visceral way. In UO you couldn't win because the players were the content. And there was so much more stuff to do solo (not co-oping) than EQ.

But don't get me wrong: UO was ten times better than EQ in my opinion, it's just that I can't see reasons to run a comparison here. Someone wants to write a snarky UO review based on Kingdom Reborn? Meet me there.

And don't get me wrong 2: I never thought EQ was awesome. It was just a great, unique game. Totally denying that greatness sounds like negationism to me.
While denying that without having played it and based on "friends told me" sounds like royal turdness, Lamaros. Don't you have anything better to do during the day than make a fool of yourself over the internet? Because it's a pain to try explain you the difference between a healthy and well known MUD and a game with boxes in every store's shelves across the world and newspapers talking about it. That's what I meant when I said "brought massively co-oping to the masses".

[tkinnun0]

It was just a great, unique game.

But it wasn't. Read the old Gamespot review ignoring all the MMO stuff and you're left with a bad RPG with some good eye-candy (for its day).

Only difference to reviewing it today is that you are forced to ignore the MMO part.

EQ was the best MMO of its day, but the MMO part is ever only 50% under the developer's control. Reviewing an MMORPG based only on its MMO is next to pointless; you might as well be comparing paying subscriber numbers.

[shiznitz]

That loot screenie is...I don't know what. Jeebus.