Ultima Online never existed.

[Kenrick]

According to this douche.

 

[Mesozoic]

Its CNN.  They're playing to an audience that probably hadn't even heard of a MMOG until they read this.

[Riggswolfe]

He didn't say Everquest was the first:

Massively multiplayer online games, or MMOGs, saw their rise in popularity with the release of Sony Online's "EverQuest" in 1999.

This quote leads me to believe he is saying it was the first one to become truly popular. Which is true. UO killed itself by being griefer heaven. EQ came second and was smart enough to make the game safe. And the rest is history.

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones. I suspect, yes. That one decision, to allow griefers and PKS free reign, directly influenced MMO development for almost a decade now.

[AOFanboi]

I think the relevant quote is

But it was EverQuest that began to allow players to visually enhance their characters over time by acquiring weapons, money and experience.

Of course, sometimes you have to squint to see any difference when changing equipment on an UO character, but...

[Train Wreck]

But at least UO let you dress as a jester!  Whenever you saw somebody in one of those hats, you knew to stay far away from them.

[Pococurante]

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones. I suspect, yes. That one decision, to allow griefers and PKS free reign, directly influenced MMO development for almost a decade now.

Agreed. The other mistake is less publicized but actually is what fueled the insane ganking: mob spawning.  Or none to speak of as was the case.

Initially it was a problem with Raph's idea to close global resources, e.g. something had to die/be harvested before something else spawned.  It was an interesting concept with no fun factor for a large world.  But even after they ripped that out spawns were just pathetically underwhelming.  I recall adventuring for several hours seeing little more than the occasional raven.  And of course reagents... bah.

Anyway with no monsters to kill players turned on each other.  And then seeing how fun/rewarding it was with no ramfiications for their actions... the rest is infamy.

To be fair the original OSI devs had no idea how many customers they would draw - they were still sizing for traditional MUDs.  Even pre-existing commercial products like Gemstone3 were just starting to see populations over 500. (when I started GS3 we rarely had more than a few hundred users)

But at least UO let you dress as a jester!  Whenever you saw somebody in one of those hats, you knew to stay far away from them.

Imanewbie!!!  He rocked.

[HaemishM]

Nope, sorry, that was just a badly researched article. UO was the largest, most popular MMOG of its time. It reached over 200k subs before EQ even came out, IIRC. Not even fucking mentioning it in the article is just bad, bad reporting. It's one thing to not mention MUDs, it's another thing entirely to not mention the game without which, EQ would never have reached the numbers it did.

What a tool.

[Bunk]

Agreed. The other mistake is less publicized but actually is what fueled the insane ganking: mob spawning.  Or none to speak of as was the case.

Initially it was a problem with Raph's idea to close global resources, e.g. something had to die/be harvested before something else spawned.  It was an interesting concept with no fun factor for a large world.  But even after they ripped that out spawns were just pathetically underwhelming.  I recall adventuring for several hours seeing little more than the occasional raven.  And of course reagents... bah.

Anyway with no monsters to kill players turned on each other.  And then seeing how fun/rewarding it was with no ramfiications for their actions... the rest is infamy.

I think you're over analizing it Poco. There was only really a lack of wilderness spawns, and once your were past newbie stage, there was nothing worthwhile to get off of mobs you found in the woods. It was much easier to just wait for someone running back from a dungeon or an orc fort.

People ganked for two reasons - it was by far the easiest way to get money/loot, and they really enjoyed the reactions of the victims after they lost everything.

I think there was a small percentage of people that ganked because they simply preferred pvp, but mostly it was just power gamers that realized that ganking was the easiest way to "win" the game.

Then there were people like me that eventually got so jaded by the Glorious Lord Gankers, that we turned to bank stealing runes/keys and looting houses.

Oh yea, original topic: the author of said article is a newb.

[Alkiera]

Playing games over the Internet didn't start with EverQuest; rudimentary games date back well before the World Wide Web became available in 1993.

I think UO falls under that heading.  Heck, just about every MMOG released to date falls under the heading of 'rudimentary'.

Alkiera

[WindupAtheist]

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones. I suspect, yes. That one decision, to allow griefers and PKS free reign, directly influenced MMO development for almost a decade now.

Please don't say things like that.  They make me cry.  And they fill me with bitter contempt for poor old Raph, who really is a swell guy.   

[Joe]

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones. I suspect, yes. That one decision, to allow griefers and PKS free reign, directly influenced MMO development for almost a decade now.

Actually, I always thought the main tenant of UO was every player in the world was forced to choose between being a ganking douche or an essentially decent human being. UO wouldn't have been UO without open PvP.

Unless you're talking about skill based systems and such, but UO was all about the community, which fostered in an attempt to protect each other from assholes.

[Jain Zar]

Which never really worked.  The gankers won and everyone else just got a hose job.  It wasn't fun to die all the time.

But don't worry about the CNN article.  Most game columns these days, even those in "pro" magazines are written by new school gamers who barely acknowledge anything before the PS1 anyhow.  Most of em have no respect or knowledge of videogaming's history whatsoever. 

[Pococurante]

Most game columns these days, even those in "pro" magazines are written by new school gamers who barely acknowledge anything before the PS1 anyhow.  Most of em have no respect or knowledge of videogaming's history whatsoever. 

A lot of us said the same thing about UO... 

There was a good decade of experience before it after all.

[Lum]

I eagerly await Haemish's 48-point red fonted rantings in a few years when someone at a mainstream news site refers to World of Warcraft as the first MMO.

[ahoythematey]

I'm pretty sure he would not bother typing anything at all and just go into murder-death-kill mode.

[HaemishM]

I eagerly await Haemish's 48-point red fonted rantings in a few years when someone at a mainstream news site refers to World of Warcraft as the first MMO.

It would truly require a larger red font than 48-point, seeing as how they would have glossed over the joy that is ES-BEE-DOT-EEE-XXXX-EEE.

See, I can say it without frothing.

[Stormwaltz]

But don't worry about the CNN article.  Most game columns these days, even those in "pro" magazines are written by new school gamers who barely acknowledge anything before the PS1 anyhow.  Most of em have no respect or knowledge of videogaming's history whatsoever.

This seems like an apt time to throw in the old saw "those who do not read history doom us to play games with the same design flaws all over again."

[HaemishM]

Isn't that the Blizzard mantra? 

[sinij]

ES-BEE-DOT-EEE-XXXX-EEE.

Inbred ass-pirate colostomy bag wearing douchbags

[Fabricated]

Isn't that the Blizzard mantra?

Played Doom 3 lately?

[Jain Zar]

Doom 3 is merely Unreal for the modern age with a nostalgia edge.  Same basic game.  Same basic concepts.  OOH ITS PRETTY.  Hey wait, its a bunch of scripted ambushes over and over again till it stops being scary.  Gimme JDoom with Doom 2 or H2H Christmas levels 2 over Doom 3.  Its Doom but prettier and with mouse aim.  Doom 3 isn't Doom.  Its Unreal, a game that was pretty underwhelming in the first place.  Not that Doom 3 is awful or anything, but its not Doom.  Fortunately for me I waited till the X Box version in the lovely metal keepcase with the DVD style special features and the original Dooms on it. 

[Arnold]

He didn't say Everquest was the first:

Massively multiplayer online games, or MMOGs, saw their rise in popularity with the release of Sony Online's "EverQuest" in 1999.

This quote leads me to believe he is saying it was the first one to become truly popular. Which is true. UO killed itself by being griefer heaven. EQ came second and was smart enough to make the game safe. And the rest is history.

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones. I suspect, yes. That one decision, to allow griefers and PKS free reign, directly influenced MMO development for almost a decade now.

But who would want to play that crap?  I would have quit the happy world of Trammel in under a month. 

The only MUDs I ever played were non-PvP and I never lasted long in them.  I would get to 10th or so level, find  myself doing the same quests and killing the same monsters and think, "WTF am I doing here?" and quit.  In UO, it was my arch enemies that kept me interested.  I wanted to get better so I could kick their asses.

[Venkman]

Nope, sorry, that was just a badly researched article. UO was the largest, most popular MMOG of its time. It reached over 200k subs before EQ even came out, IIRC. Not even fucking mentioning it in the article is just bad, bad reporting. It's one thing to not mention MUDs, it's another thing entirely to not mention the game without which, EQ would never have reached the numbers it did.

UO didn't hit 200k until after Renaissance, which was well after EQ, and in direct response to it really. UO was a niche title for the more dedicated gamer. EQ knocked the shit out of it, popularity-wise, in ways not seen again until Blizzard handed SOE its lunch with EQ 1.75.

But this article is not about that. It simply shows why history is written by the victors. That mostly happens with hacks parrot what they hear rather than do any real fucking work. Becausew work is hard.

SOE has milked and promoted the EQ brand all over the place in many new and fascinating ways, from other games, to any sort of attention given it due to success. Again, like WoW. I mean, shit, fucking PARC is talking about WoW? That's a sign of popularity: something so fucking big it can't be ignored.

Meanwhile, EA has done precisely shit with UO, basically adding to the decline of the Ultima brand started with Ascension.

Sometimes I wonder, had Raph and the others not made UO totally open pvp would we be playing UO-clones instead of EQ-clones.

I doubt it personally. EQ's success and the derivatives it spawned is, imho, based on players wanting a "deep" combat experience through a fairly predictable linear typical RPG experience. Even Trammelized UO couldn't do that. Crafting, commerce, and virtual citizenry were almost as important as combat, which itself was fairly one dimensional, being little more than a means to and end. This is similar to SWG, which I've always considered UO2 anyway, since the theme has zip to do with the underlying gameplay.

[WindupAtheist]

If you say UO, Sinij and Arnold will appear to bemoan the passing of the Dread Lord Days.  It's like an F13 law.

[Megrim]

If you say UO, Sinij and Arnold will appear to bemoan the passing of the Dread Lord Days.  It's like an F13 law.

PLEASE try to keep your limbs inside the vehicle at all times.

 - meg

[HaemishM]

Nope, sorry, that was just a badly researched article. UO was the largest, most popular MMOG of its time. It reached over 200k subs before EQ even came out, IIRC. Not even fucking mentioning it in the article is just bad, bad reporting. It's one thing to not mention MUDs, it's another thing entirely to not mention the game without which, EQ would never have reached the numbers it did.

UO didn't hit 200k until after Renaissance, which was well after EQ, and in direct response to it really. UO was a niche title for the more dedicated gamer. EQ knocked the shit out of it, popularity-wise, in ways not seen again until Blizzard handed SOE its lunch with EQ 1.75.

That's neither here nor there. The first successful Massively-Multiplayer Online Game was UO, and even if it didn't reach 200k until after EQ was out, it was still as huge as EQ on its release. It was totally and completely ignored, which is bad research AND bad writing. No, it's not surprising, just galling.

[shiznitz]

Mainstream media game articles are always retarded puppet theater. Amazing really, given how much time organizations like CNN spend on "white girl gone missing" stories.

[Merusk]

Mainstream media game articles are always retarded puppet theater. Amazing really, given how much time organizations like CNN spend on "white girl gone missing" stories.

The scary will hit you when you realize that they spend as much time and effort researching those 'white girl gone missing' stories as they do the gaming stories.

[sinij]

I was always under impression that Meridian59 released quite a bit earlier than UO and was for a while successful title.

[Kenrick]

I was always under impression that Meridian59 released quite a bit earlier than UO and was for a while successful title.

Well... maybe... sorta... I guess... but there wasn't any /pizza command.  suXX0r.   

[HaemishM]

No one had the numbers UO did on release. NO ONE. M59 was moderately successful, but I don't think it ever got even half the numbers UO did. Same goes for The Realm.

[sinij]

Funny thing is that UO shards were designed with 1000-1500 people in mind. UO's success was its undoing. Who knows maybe player justice and population spawns  and number of other controversial ideas would have worked out if not for thousands of JoeShmoes stuffed into Moonglow graveyard.

[Teleku]

Naaaah, it really did just suck.

[Riggswolfe]

Funny thing is that UO shards were designed with 1000-1500 people in mind. UO's success was its undoing. Who knows maybe player justice and population spawns  and number of other controversial ideas would have worked out if not for thousands of JoeShmoes stuffed into Moonglow graveyard.

Dreamer

[Venkman]

I only mentioned the pre/post-Renaissance gig because that's when it really began to be a relevant member of the triumvirate. I never really knew how successful AC1 was, but we were all there during the My Game Is Better Than Your Game days. It still happens now, but it's quieter because everyone's spread over many more places :)

Ah well. The CNN article still sucked. It did ignore a critical bit of MMORPG history.

On a just-barely-related-enough-for-this-thread track, I've always wondered: if not for the trammelized experience, how UO would have faired? Would it have ever broken 100k? Would it's lack of success just propelled EQ further? It's not like UO having hit 200k really did much more than let us play UO2 in SWG, so maybe it's irrelevant anyway.