*sigh* More shallow design thinking

[Soukyan]

Well my experience with EQ2 is definitely one where player abilities matter a lot.

MMOGs do not require much in the way of player ability. Yes, I know strategy and quick thinking and parsing the spreadsheet data. Heh. Been there, done that, any monkey can do it. I'm actually looking forward to the day that they teach a gorilla to play EQ. Anyway, character abilities are what matter more than player abilities in EQ2. And that's alright. That's what I've come to expect from MMOGs. If I want player skill, I play UT2K4 or WC3 or any number of other multiplayer games that actually require skill on the human end.

[shiznitz]

Bottom line: EQ2 is now superior to EQ1 solely due to the mentoring mechanic. Getting outlevelled by your friends is no longer fun-breaking.

On the encounter system, I actually found it amusing that grouping with a much higher level player would de-aggro vast amounts of content. That has now been fixed (mobs that would be red to someone in the group solo will aggro on the group, no matter what the encounter cons.)

EQ2 keeps getting better. I am finding that content options are increasing dramatically as I level up (25 now.) With all the heritage and access quests that open up at 25, I am down right overwhelmed some evenings.

My remaining pet peeves with EQ2 are not many:

1) it is totally unclear whether upgrading skills beyond Apprentice IV is really worth it unless one happens to stumble on an Adept drop, since so many skill descriptions are just flat out wrong when actually parsed.

2) tradeskilling trivial combines is a horrible timesink.

3) the engine draws too many polys the player never actually sees.

4) I hate the timers on zones one has completed a quest to access.

5) I hate the level restrictions on zones. I should be able to tag along with a higher level group if I want to and they are willing. The encounter system makes exploring these zones incredibly dangerous for an underpowered character to visit anyway, so why the double roadblock?

[kaid]

On the plus side about the access timers is many of those are being removed or shrunk very low. The EL boat quest now has an 8 minute timer on it which was good due to a few mess ups we made helping a guild mate. Heheh we got to cocky and we paid the piper for it.

So far eq2 has been doing a good job adding and streamlining things and removing some of the unfun parts like the access timers on fails for many zones. I don't have a problem with them putting in a timer on a completion or for some really great loot droping instances but the majority should not have a punishing 8 hour reuse timer and I believe over time those will be removed totally.

kaid

[HaemishM]

What is it about WoW's rules, for example, that make the game more fun some people? 

The fact that like City of Heroes and unlike EQ2, I felt like my actions in combat mattered. In EQ2, I never felt that way. It felt like the encounter was pre-determined for me, and short of having a seizing fit and being unable to press the exact same sequence of keys every single time, I would win or lose the fight based on my level vs. the enemy's level. The heroic opportunities were awful; I've heard they have improved.

Another big difference between the CoH/WoW level of fun and EQ2's was that in EQ2, fighting more than one monster was usually either suicidal, or so unrewarding as to be not worth doing. In CoH/WoW, I routinely take on 2-3 or more mobs at once, and it's just a much more interesting, engrossing experience.

[StGabe]

Hmm.

I don't know what to say Haemish except that your comments don't resemble the game that I feel I am playing with EQ2 or the game I played with WoW.  I never felt that my own actions in WoW really mattered much.  In WoW one hotbar was enough to hold all my abilities and 90% of the time I was spamming the same three.  The optimal way to level (and farm gold) is to solo blues with absolutely zero risk.  In EQ2, both my characters are now on their 3rd hotbar of abilities (and I actually use them all).  I routinely solo or group against stuff that I know other players would think I was crazy to do.  Both my characters can take on grouped mobs -- but only with a certain amount of strategy.  My Illusionist can keep other stuff mez'ed and then root/rot another, but it takes a lot of concentration and is risky.  My Dirge can kite, sort of.  At level 23, for example, I was solo'ing groups of 6 blues.  But there was a lot of risk (and the risk felt real unlike in WoW where a death can be convenient) and I actually died 3 or 4 times figuring out how to solo those groups.

The solo content has greatly improved.  For example there is a new solo dungeon for 1-2 players called the D'morte crypts that is a lot of fun at level 29-35 (there is a second instance of it you can try that is slighly higher level).   The enemies come in groups of 1-3 and are all soloable.  Both the xps and loot are very good.

Another example.  I unlocked Zek, a level 30+ area on my character.  I immediately got hit up with over 10 quests.  I solo'ed almost all of them.  While doing so I explored the zone quite a bit, picked up looted quest-starters, and got a whole new wave of quests including one rather epic quest to explore all the areas of the zone.  I explored all the way to the 40+ instance at the end of the zone where I found a really cool level 35 quest that I was able to solo.  I had a great time dodging aggro on mobs that would have killed me in only a few shots had I screwed up at all.  I found out that stepping on a certain bridge is a very *bad* thing (it triggers an attack by all the local mobs).  I had to find paths through the field of orcs outside the citadel to get the final quest. Etc.  But I did all that, did a ton of quests, got lots of xps, gold, items and felt very well rewarded for exploring, doing stuff on my own, and taking risks.

I think this experience goes against so many stereotypes that people have of EQ.  I did maybe 30 quests almost all solo (and I am still doing them -- I've got about 10 in my journal right now).  I've spent probably 20 or more hours there, and was persuing different interesting quests of some sort that whole time.  I am solo'ing groups of monsters.  I am facing significant risk and I am doing lots of things that other "less skilled" players wouldn't or couldn't do.  And whenever my friends come by I group with them and have a good time too.  I've duo'ed a fair amount and that has been a lot of fun (with various different combos of duos) and done some stuff in full groups -- and had fun all the while.

In short, I think that:

a) a lot has already changed in EQ2, for the better, dismissing a lot of the early complaints
b) a lot of players have very strong opinions about EQ2 that aren't very well founded in the actual gameplay -- they hit level 10 or level 20, find the first thing that they dodn't like and immediately dimiss the whole game (because they were just waiting for something to confirm to them that Blizzard rocks and SOE sucks)

StGabe.

[jpark]

Bottom line: EQ2 is now superior to EQ1 solely due to the mentoring mechanic. Getting outlevelled by your friends is no longer fun-breaking.
EQ2 keeps getting better. I am finding that content options are increasing dramatically as I level up (25 now.) With all the heritage and access quests that open up at 25, I am down right overwhelmed some evenings.

My remaining pet peeves with EQ2 are not many

What's the status on further differentiating (e.g. among tanks or among healers etc.) race and class choices?  Or has that remained status quo since December?

[HaemishM]

The optimal way to level (and farm gold) is to solo blues with absolutely zero risk. 

There's the problem. I wasn't looking for the "optimal way to level or farm gold." I was playing a game. I was enjoying the quests. I played almost a month and never once did I "camp" or farm anything. I think the only time I ever sat and killed the same stuff that wasn't quest-based lasted about 10 minutes of me just trying to get that last little bit before the next level.

If you played WoW to find the optimal leveling path, it'd be a pretty damn boring game.

In contrast, in EQ2, I felt like there were huge swaths of content I couldn't get close to because I didn't group much, and also felt that I HAD to camp to level stuff, even with all the quests.

EDIT: I played a warrior in both games. I could barely make it into the teens in EQ2. The pace of play was SO SLOW, the pace of getting new abilities so slow, and the new abilities I got felt like increments on the same ability. In short, I was bored stiff. I never once got bored with WoW.

[StGabe]

If you played WoW to find the optimal leveling path, it'd be a pretty damn boring game.

For those of us achievement based players, who are looking for any way possible to use actual skill to set ourselves above the rest, the discovery that solo'ing blues (whether we do it or not!) is optimal for both xps and gold is quite a problem because it basically sets up a game where any time we try to have fun by doing the quests, etc., we are being punished.

After level 20 when I discovered this I found myself constantly in the situation where I had to decide whether I was going to actually achieve something that day, or try to have fun with friends.  And given that chances to achieve and try to be a skillful player are very important to me (and others), this is a particularly bad choice.

And no matter which I chose, I rarely found that player skill really mattered all that much.  A warrior, was a warrior, was was a warrior.  You either had a stupid one or a basically competent one and that was that.  I don't find that in EQ2.  I find that some warriors are fantastic, some are adequate and some are stupid and that I notice the differences easily.

In EQ2 I find I can mix group and solo play, epic and non-epic content, etc., to get a combination that fits me.  Do you want to camp for an epic item?  Then the GLS is for you.  Do you want a more storybased epic quest without camps?  Then the SBD quest is for you.  Do you want to solo or duo with a friend?  Head to the D'morte crypts.  Do you want to group for some taxing group content?  Go hit Ruins of Varsoon.  And no matter which way you go you're going to get some good rewards.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

I found the first 20 levels of EQ2 to be a lot of fun, and after 20 I found that my options exploded to where I had far too much to do.  It was slower but I didn't mind because I had such a large set of options.

In my experience, EQ2 players are always fighting the 50 quest limit because they have so many quests they want to do and can't help but green out most of them.  I know that my second character hasn't been at less than 40 quests in his journal since he got into Qeynos the first time.

Also, I find that by level 20 the average EQ2 character already has almost as many abilities to use as most WoW characters will get in their entire lifespan.  Like I said, both my characters at 30 are using 3 hotbars because I actually over 24 abilities -- all the time.

*shrug*

StGabe.

[HaemishM]

You will take this as an attack, and so be it.

I'd please you to try not to fag up other games with the achievement-based mentality. It killed EQ1, it's what made EQ2, and it festers at the high-end of most MMOG's out there.

You may want to "achieve." Most of the rest of us would just like to have fun playing.

[Glazius]

If you played WoW to find the optimal leveling path, it'd be a pretty damn boring game.

For those of us achievement based players, who are looking for any way possible to use actual skill to set ourselves above the rest, the discovery that solo'ing blues (whether we do it or not!) is optimal for both xps and gold is quite a problem because it basically sets up a game where any time we try to have fun by doing the quests, etc., we are being punished.

So, what you're saying is...

1) Fun is punishment.

2) Boredom is pleasure.

3) You like EQ2.

I don't really have much to add to that.

--GF

[jpark]

After level 20 when I discovered this I found myself constantly in the situation where I had to decide whether I was going to actually achieve something that day, or try to have fun with friends.  StGabe.

That you hesitate at all in weighing these two "options" says a lot.  About EQ2 and the player.

[Sobelius]

After level 20 when I discovered this I found myself constantly in the situation where I had to decide whether I was going to actually achieve something that day, or try to have fun with friends.  StGabe.

That you hesitate at all in weighing these two "options" says a lot.  About EQ2 and the player.

As much as I enjoy both EQ2 and WoW (for different reasons), this is a good point. I should never have to choose between achievement and having fun with my friends. This, IMHO, is one reason why WoW is creaming the pants off EQ2 -- I have never had to make this choice in WoW; I sometimes have to make this choice in EQ2.

I play a rogue/assassin in EQ2 and have 4 hotbars full of buttons, many of which I use in and out of combat -- my choices are definitely based on whether I'm soloing or playing support-DPS in a group. I have really enjoyed EQ2 gameplay and combat as an assassin.

In WoW my main is a Warlock. At level 24 I have more abilities than WoW's single hotbar can handle. Fortunately the upcoming patch allows for multiple hotbars in the UI and I'll be very happy. I'm also really happy with the Warlock in WoW -- I have so many options and choices and I'm amazed at how much I have to pay attention to avoid getting slammed by a challenging encounter.

[StGabe]

I'd please you to try not to fag up other games with the achievement-based mentality. It killed EQ1, it's what made EQ2, and it festers at the high-end of most MMOG's out there.

I don't take it as an attack.

I just take it as a projection of your own opinions onto others and a failure to understand that other people find other things fun.  It sounds like my dad.  He just can't understand that people don't like the same food, TV, etc., as him.  He'll sit around for half an hour telling you what a great source of potassium grapes are without ever considering the notion that you might simply not like grapes.

I could sit here and tell you what I think your playstyle is one of banal passivity.  That you just want your content spoonfed to you and that the reason you can't enjoy EQ2 is that you can't take 5 minutes to go out and explore a bit without getting a pat on the back from an NPC telling you that you're a super cool hero person.  That you are simply a very simpleminded gamer who will buy any mechanic that allows you to achieve something and will except simulated rewards for simulated challenges over games that create real situations where you can truly exercise your skills simply because the former is more convenient.  Blah, blah, blah.

Or I could just realize that you have a different playstyle.  Which you do.  So play WoW, I have no problem with that.  But don't take the failure of EQ2 to fulfill your own personal, very specialized tastes as somehow a sin against the world.  You don't dig it.  Many of us do.  So be it.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

So, what you're saying is...

1) Fun is punishment.

2) Boredom is pleasure.

3) You like EQ2.

I don't really have much to add to that.

Uhh, no.  But thank you for applying that tired stereotype against because you couldn't bother to actually think outside your own personal preferences.  In WoW, trying to explore the social aspects of the game, trying to do stuff with my friends, etc., felt like punishment because the achievement sucked compared to solo play.  And achievement is an important part of a game to me.  Just like it is in real life.  I actually want to set and realize goals.  OMG, I'm a fun nazi!  Err, no.  I'm a programmer and a mathematician in real life.  And I enjoy finding clever efficient solutions to problems.  I love puzzle games, for example, because I get to think a lot about strategy and how best to achieve my objectives.  That is fun to me.  And I'm not alone.  You don't need to be a math/computer geek like me to enjoy achieving stuff.  A game that can let you achieve stuff while having fun is better, IMO, than a game that only lets you do one or the other.

Gabe.

[StGabe]

As much as I enjoy both EQ2 and WoW (for different reasons), this is a good point. I should never have to choose between achievement and having fun with my friends. This, IMHO, is one reason why WoW is creaming the pants off EQ2 -- I have never had to make this choice in WoW; I sometimes have to make this choice in EQ2.

Maybe this changed post-beta but I could always make much better xps and loot solo than with friends in WoW.  In EQ2 I find the opposite is true -- I find that I am well rewarded for grouping, duo'ing solo'ing, etc.  I find that I have opportunities to camp, if I so want, or opportunities to quest and explore.  There are epic story-based quests with no camping and epic camp-based quests with lots of questing.  I.e. lots of different rewards no matter what it is that you find to be fun.

StGabe.

[Glazius]

Uhh, no.  But thank you for applying that tired stereotype against because you couldn't bother to actually think outside your own personal preferences.

Hey, bonus points for putting a stereotype in your stereotype-accusation!

And achievement is an important part of a game to me.  Just like it is in real life.  I actually want to set and realize goals.  OMG, I'm a fun nazi!  Err, no.

Err, YES.

God, I'd hate to play basketball with you. You head out on a weekend, get some fresh air in, shoot hoops in the warm spring breeze, and then head home all dejected because you didn't score 40 points like last weekend.

If you're gaming to achieve anything, you're not actually gaming. You're fighting a war via proxy. (Not for nothing does Sirlin, one of the greatest achiever-gamers on the Web, back up his ideas with quotes from Sun Tsu's Art of War.) The entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results.

Georg Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms, 1910.

--GF

...and the unpleasant realization that Bartle's four types are gaming dysfunctions just smacked me upside the head.

[Sobelius]

If you're gaming to achieve anything, you're not actually gaming. You're fighting a war via proxy. (Not for nothing does Sirlin, one of the greatest achiever-gamers on the Web, back up his ideas with quotes from Sun Tsu's Art of War.) The entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results.

Sorry Glazius, you're not reading what StGabe says about himself -- for *him* achievement in gaming is what makes it fun *for him*. He has not said that because he gets his fun from achievement that somehow anyone who doesn't, doesn't know how to have fun. All he has been saying for the last dozen or so posts is that EQ2 suits his play style better than WoW. At least that's how it sounds to me.

When you make statements like "The entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results." can you see how you are making a blanket statement and assuming that everyone else shares this opinion? In fact, it's just your opinion (or your experience) that "the entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results." Just because it's true for you doesn't make it true for everyone else.

And as far as shooting hoops goes, why on earth should it bother you that *he* might be upset if he doesn't make 40 points like he did last weekend? Why not let him feel the way he wants to feel about his own life? You can still go play basketball and play it to get away from the goals and consequences of the real world.

Back to EQ2 vs WoW, though. I find that EQ2 has harsher penalties and stricter rules than WoW. IMHO, EQ2 tends to force me to play the achiever style or perish. IMHO, WoW does not. Furthermore, I find that there are other aspects of WoW besides level advancement that feel enjoyable to me as a casual player -- it's easier to sell and buy items, it's easier for me to explore zones I've never been to before and to return to zones I've already been to, and crafting is much much easier (literally a non-timesink to make the item, and as an herbalist/alchemist I can gather all the ingredients I need while I explore and quest; in EQ2 it's definitely much more complex and time consuming).

Like you, Glazius, I play these games almost always like you do -- to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results. But like StGabe, I enjoy the occasional puzzle and problem and the sense of accomplishment that comes from overcoming a dificult challenge -- I just don't want to have do that every time I log in, and furthermore I want to be able to choose when I want to face a difficult challenge. IMHO, WoW does a better job of giving me this choice than EQ2.

[UD_Delt]

The entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results.

Kind of a narrow viewpoint isn't it? Maybe that is YOUR purpose of gaming but you have to realize, as has already been said, but not everyone is like you.

I also am a more results oriented person. The process is secondary to the results and is nothing more than something to overcome. If it's fun then great! If it's not fun then I'd very much have to consider the results. Again, a results oriented point of view.

I guess in summary it's good that there is EQ2 and WoW. Both appeal to a different type of gamer. EQ2=Results WoW=Process.

End of argument.

[Glazius]

The entire purpose of gaming is to break away from the goals and consequences of the real world and enjoy the process, rather than the results.

Kind of a narrow viewpoint isn't it? Maybe that is YOUR purpose of gaming but you have to realize, as has already been said, but not everyone is like you.

I also am a more results oriented person. The process is secondary to the results and is nothing more than something to overcome. If it's fun then great! If it's not fun then I'd very much have to consider the results. Again, a results oriented point of view.

I guess in summary it's good that there is EQ2 and WoW. Both appeal to a different type of gamer. EQ2=Results WoW=Process.

End of argument.

There was this guy who lived back at the turn of the 20th century. He was an academic, but not a very typical one. He rarely cited other academics in his works, and as such never made it too high up the promotion ladder.

Part of that was due to being a Jew in Germany.

But a lot of people read and were inspired by his work, including George Herbert Mead and Talcott Parsons, the founders of American sociology.

His name was Georg Simmel. Among the many essays he wrote are sociological examinations of conflict, money, religion, the lure of adventure, and yes, gaming. Such as it was back at the turn of the 20th century.

The odd thing about him is how time has borne him out on a lot of things. Many sociologists today find that Simmel is "returning from a point they are even now struggling to reach".

"Gaming = process, reality = results" is one of his theories. Granted, this is social science, so even the moderately exacting standards of research science don't necessarily apply. And, just as in research science, you're free to believe whatever you want to.

What I believe is: if you're playing a game for results, you're expecting something out of a game that the idea of "gaming" was not meant to bear, and setting yourself up for disappointment.

--GF

[UD_Delt]

What I believe is: if you're playing a game for results, you're expecting something out of a game that the idea of "gaming" was not meant to bear, and setting yourself up for disappointment.

And what I believe is that you should play whatever game you enjoy and derive what enjoyment you can from it as long as you can.

Personally (meaning I have no scholars to back me up) I don't see the sustainability of a game that is all about the "process". If there are no eventual results it seems that the process would eventually get boring and repetitive. But again that is just me and other people might never need any sort of result to enjoy a game.

[Soukyan]

Hey, look! Everyone has an opinion and nobody is willing to admit to another having made an objective statement. This is called a stalemate. Sometimes you find a stalemate in games as well.

[schild]

Hey, look! Everyone has an opinion and nobody is willing to admit to another having made an objective statement. This is called a stalemate. Sometimes you find a stalemate in games as well.

Stalemate is just another word for the relationship between endgame, patches and credit cards. Wait, no, I think that's highway robbery.

[UD_Delt]

Hey, look! Everyone has an opinion and nobody is willing to admit to another having made an objective statement. This is called a stalemate. Sometimes you find a stalemate in games as well.

Stalemate is just another word for the relationship between endgame, patches and credit cards. Wait, no, I think that's highway robbery.

And here I thought stalemate was what my wife would become after 10 years.

Oh Yeah!

/rimshot

[HaemishM]

The reason I say not to fag up other games is because the achiever mindset is so strongly deathgripped around the MMOG industry that it has created the series of EQ clones we have. And nothing else succeeds. Every MMOG I've played has been festooned with the raging asshole message board fuckers who think that reaching 50 is an "achievement" of some note, and that if you do not "earn" it, you aren't worthy of having it. Of course, by "earn it," what they actually mean is not get bored and quit through hours and hours of repetitive content munching.

Fine, I understand that SOME people like achievement-based gameplay. I like it a little myself. I'm not saying remove achievement-based gameplay. But for fuck's sake, games like EQ1 were RUINED by people like Furor and Tigole insisting that the game be "challenging" for them, never realizing or giving a shit that other people do not play like them and don't want to. But instead of telling that 1% minority represented by these raging douchebags, the EQ1 devs decided that all encounters had to be "balanced" to be "challenging" to these fucking morons. And before you can say COCKMONGER, the game has been changed to be some inane patience fest, where any rewards take more time than most people have to play in a week. Anyone not "committed" to putting in the time just shouldn't even have bothered.

There's nothing wrong with achiever-based gameplay, so long as it doesn't alienate or punish the majority of the playerbase. See, achievers are the worst type of MMOG subscribers, because they learn the most efficient way to burn through content, do so, and then bitch, whine and moan when they don't have anything new to do. They are content-consuming MACHINES.

The majority of people couldn't and won't hit 40 in WoW in 2 months, whereas most achiever types can do it in the span of the free month, then bitch, moan and complain about the lack of "high-end" content until they quit or play an alt, never paying a subscription fee. That's bad business and bad game design.

[Toast]

Good stuff, Haemish.

The "challenge/treadmill" people are virtually non-existent in this forum. Grinding through long treadmills and working through in-game red tape is only an achievement if anyone cares.

Just out of curiosity, what other forums do you frequent, StGabe?

[StGabe]

Well I would say that you guys still are using a lot of generalities about EQ2 that just aren't true.

Can you solo well in EQ2?  Absolutely.  I solo'ed to 20 in 20 hours.  That character is level 31 and still solos as much as he groups, with fine rewards.

Can you do tons of quests as you level?  Absolutely.  In those 20 hours I did 110 quests.  A common complaint amoung EQ2 players is that the quest journal is not big enough with 50 entries to hold all the quests they want to work on.

Do you have to camp?  Absolutely not.  The loot is very random and drops on all kinds of stuff.  Some heritages and quests rely on camping but they are a minority -- a striking departure from EQ1.

The biggest difference between EQ2 and WoW that I find is that WoW holds your hand a bit more to help you find alll the quests that you might want to do.  In EQ2 you may have to ask around a bit more to find out that there is a series of involved armor quests that you can start at level 20 for a full set of good armor, etc.  In WoW you'll have some NPC's give you quest xps and tell you exactly where to go just to find the next series of quests.

I think that, in a zeal to combat what some see as a contrary gamestyle to their own, people are going way overboard to exaggerate the gameplay of EQ2 when in fact EQ2 does offer many of the things they say they want and has come a long eway from EQ1.  If you're going to level these general charges against it that it "forces achiever style play" then please provide some examples that we can work with.

As far as styles of fun, just look at all the players who play puzzle games.  Most want to achieve higher scores and better play and enjoy the challenges of the puzzles.  That's how I am.  I want interesting challenges that give me a chance to achieve better and better results.  And that's what EQ2 offers better than WoW -- for me.  WoW never felt challenging, it felt more like a guided tour through a world.  LIke one of those games that came out when CD's were a new, amazing innovation on the market.  You know those games that went nuts over being able to store 600 megs of multimedia and would just give the player a sideshow of their cool art with some occasional button-clicking to make the user feel involved.  In EQ2 I get to actually feel like my ability to solve the puzzles and challenges that are handed out to me yields some tangible game benefit.  And if I fail there are some consequences.  It feels more "real" to me.  When it comes to immersion: I couldn't give a rat's ass if the game has good graphics, has a nice NPC-based storyline, etc.  I just care if the game mechanics make the game feel like a real world to me.  Not because I am some "virtual world" dreamer but because that actually keeps me engaged in the game.

In other words, that's what fun is to me.  Not to you perhaps but that's how things are for me and many others.

His name was Georg Simmel.

As for your academic name-dropping, it's just that -- name-dropping.  If he has a particularly powerful argument to tell me that my subjective experiences are in fact wrong then by all means tell us what it is.  Otherwise, the fact that there was some guy, once upon a time, who agreed with you, really doesn't add much to the discussion.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

Grinding through long treadmills and working through in-game red tape is only an achievement if anyone cares.

Just the way you state those shows a huge bias/prejudice.  You refuse to admit that what to me is a long series of interesting ingame puzzles is anything more than "ingame redtape".

If you continue to use language like this, revel in your own ideas of fun, and bash anyone that who disagrees then is it really that surprising if you attract a certain type of post to your board over time?

I post on all sorts of boards.  The SWG boards, the EQ2 boards, used to be on the gamefaqs boards, a few blogs (it's not at all on-topic, but check out David Brin's blog, good stuff), I lurk mud-dev, etc.  Do I automatically agree with all the posters on these boards?  Am one of them just because I might actually post on some other forum?  Uh no.  Boards across the internet breed a sort of incestuous style of posting where outside ideas or opinions are instantly flamed off the board and ignored.  And I try to argue against that, whatever form it might take.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

Every MMOG I've played has been festooned with the raging asshole message board fuckers who think that reaching 50 is an "achievement" of some note, and that if you do not "earn" it, you aren't worthy of having it.

And for each of these there are those whiny assholes who think that just because they can't immediately solve a puzzle, it's broken.  It goes both ways.  And I think we have seen a constant trend towards accessibility, removal of restrictions, etc.  In EQ and elsewhere.  It's happening big time even in SWG right now -- and I think that SWG may well pay for it because they've accumulated a playerbase that really enjoys the virtual worldiness and tight social interactions that comes out of the rules and structure of that game.

In other words, those guys you are complaining about aren't winning, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

StGabe.

[HaemishM]

Yes, they are winning. See EQ1. See EQ2's "Guild levels" and high-level content access quests. See WoW's high level instance raid game. See DAoC's insanely long leveling curve, TOA master levels and artifiacts.

See, you talk about "interesting puzzle challenges" and I must admit to not really ever having seen that in most MMOG's, especially EQ2. These aren't puzzles. They don't involve "go hunt this named NPC in this area." That's not a puzzle. MMOG quests just have not done the whole "puzzle/thinking" thing well. An example of a good puzzle in a quest? Some of the puzzles in the Sith area of KOTOR 1. THose were interesting and took thought, and I remember playing that thinking "Why don't MMOG's have quests like this?"

[StGabe]

See EQ1.

Ok, let's start there.

When EQ1 started, I lost a bubble every time I died and rarely got rez'ed.  I had to take a boat everywhere I went and it could take me an hour to get across the world.  If I lost a corpse deep in a raid zone I could be in real risk of losing everything I owned.

All of those things went away.

On top of that I had to worry about trains, about kill-stealing, about all kinds of crap.  Stuff which none of the games you mention today have.

See EQ2's "Guild levels"

I'm not sure what you could find to fault in these.  These give you purely optional content.  They open up raids but the devs were very clear that these were just "for fun" raids that wouldn't compete with the other raid content available.  They open up the ability to buy stuff more cheaply from certain city merchants but all of these things are just "fun" stuff.  And they promote working together with your friends and your guild to do stuff.  So what on earth is wrong about guild levels?  How is leveling up a guild anything but just an alternate sort of content for people who like guilds?

high-level content access quests

You don't have to do any of these if you don't want.  A lot of the zones will open up to you later in levels if you don't do the access quests (I decided not to do the EL access quest on my second character -- but at level 32 he gets access anyway).  You can make it all the way to 50, doing quests the whole time, and never do an access quest if you don't want.  I have only done one access quest on my most recent character and I've still had a ton of content to do.

MMOG quests just have not done the whole "puzzle/thinking" thing well. An example of a good puzzle in a quest?

For me it was an interesting puzzle to figure out how to do the giant language quest when giants were still yellow to me.  These guys were really nasty for their con, and didn't have too many solo spawns.  I had to sneak around the zone picking up the solo spawns and kill them with a set of tactics that was risky but worked (and that I developed after several deaths).

If you want to say that "go kill X foozles" isn't interesting then I agree.  That quest, in and of itself, is very boring.  And that's really why I didn't like WoW -- I found that 95% of the content was that.  What is interesting is the combat system.  Is it challenging, do you have to think about what you are doing.  Are there risks and consequences for failure?  Those are all important things for me and I find that EQ2 does a better job with them.

THose were interesting and took thought, and I remember playing that thinking "Why don't MMOG's have quests like this?"

SWG has several. ATitD has lots.  But they are one-offs and it's hard to justify the dev time.  You need more recurring puzzles.  Like SWG's economy.  Like challenging combat in EQ2.  At least that's what does it for me.

The real appeal to virtual worlds is not what a lot of the VW dreamers come up with.  It's just that virtual worlds create contexts with sustainable challenges/puzzles where the same content can keep players engaged for months or years.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

I think you guys have to admit that it's not that you aren't achievers.  You obviously are achievers.  If you weren't achievers then you wouldn't care at all that some players get to do this insanely time-consuming, or whatever, raid content.  It would be a non-issue to you because you could give a rat's ass if other players achieved from some content that wasn't fun for you.

But that's not the case, is it?

StGabe.

[HaemishM]

Where we disagree is that you actually think combat in EQ2 was challenging and interesting, and I thought it's combat was more boring than Horizons, DAoC, EQ1, Shadowbane, especially WoW and CoH. About the only game more boring to me was Eve.

My problem with guild levels is that they are another treadmill, only at the guild level. I have no problem with guild-specific quests; that is a good thing. But I thought the implementation of EQ2's guild levels was total ass. Your level being allowed to fluctuate because some of your members don't play? Or because some of your members quit? Bad implementation, bad design.

When EQ1 started, I lost a bubble every time I died and rarely got rez'ed.  I had to take a boat everywhere I went and it could take me an hour to get across the world.  If I lost a corpse deep in a raid zone I could be in real risk of losing everything I owned.

All of those things went away.

On top of that I had to worry about trains, about kill-stealing, about all kinds of crap.  Stuff which none of the games you mention today have.

And thank God that those things DID go away in new games. Because they added not one good goddamn thing to games. I will add that EQ2's response to kill-stealing, the encounter locking system, was a good concept, bad execution.

I don't consider combat a puzzle. I understand where you are coming from, seeing it from a more analytical/systemic viewpoint. Me, I look at it as combat. It's about the magic circle. A puzzle is trying to figure out the right combination of levers to open a door, or shut down a reactor. Combat is about combat. I see it more from the world perspective than the game perspective.

[HaemishM]

I don't care if the catasses achieve from content or not. I want to be able to access said content or content of similar challenge without having to give up my entire lifestyle to do so, ignoring food, bathroom, sunlight and spouse just to be able to raid the great dragon.

[StGabe]

Where we disagree is that you actually think combat in EQ2 was challenging and interesting, and I thought it's combat was more boring than Horizons, DAoC, EQ1, Shadowbane, especially WoW and CoH.

Not a surprise really.  You can't convince me and I can't convince you, I'm sure.  I just know that my two characters have some of the most interesting sets of abilities I've seen in an MMO and that I make heavy use of 3 hotbars worth of abilities.  That I routinely use skill to solo/group things that lesser skilled characters could not.  That I have seen logs showing great differences in DPS output depending on playstyle, etc.

In the end I think that those who went into EQ2 wishing to fulfill their preconceived notion that EQ2 would suck are going to find some way or another to do that, no matter what.  It's anti-fanboyism.  Maybe that's not you but it sure seems like it to me.

Your level being allowed to fluctuate because some of your members don't play? Or because some of your members quit? Bad implementation, bad design.

Again you are reinforcing my opinion that people here dislike EQ2 out of ignorance more than anything else.  Only those players setup as patrons contribute to your guild level.  So you can choose which of your players are going to count for leveling and which aren't.  If someone isn't interested in leveling the guild, don't set them up as a patron.  They can still do guild quests, can still get status points and buy stuff with that, they just won't impact the guild level.  I'm not sure that there is any impact now when you take someone off of patron or they quit either.  If there is, it isn't a huge one.  I switched main characters a while ago and had to switch who was a patron to my guild.  It wasn't a big deal.

Because they added not one good goddamn thing to games.

Many, many gamers disagree with you.  A lot of players are upset with EQ2 because they sorely miss a feeling of greater involvement with the world that greater distances and greater penalties brought about.  Maybe opinions on this board are polarized but there are a lot of different ones elsewhere.  A cursory glance at any EQ2 board should find you lots of nostalgia posts about boats, feelings of real distance and feelings of real risk and what those meant to players and how those helped them get immersed into the EQ world.

StGabe.