←back to thread

EverQuest

(www.filfre.net)
203 points dmazin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
mike1o1 ◴[] No.44466395[source]
I absolutely loved EverQuest and it’s still probably holds some of my fondest gaming memories. My favorite feeling about it is that it felt like a real world first, gameplay second. It had a real sense of danger and wonder that I think will be almost impossible to recreate.

Going from Qeynos to Freeport, or crossing the ocean on a boat felt absolutely epic and dangerous. It was wonderful, but not something I would want to play today now that I have real life obligations.

replies(7): >>44466496 #>>44467016 #>>44467074 #>>44467096 #>>44467442 #>>44467483 #>>44467665 #
jghn ◴[] No.44467074[source]
I hated EQ for me the reason was it was not UO nor was it even trying to recreate the vibrancy & real world that UO's designers had gone for. *BUT* I also recognized that EQ represented a game that was much more aligned to what a normal gamer would want, one could already see that path being forged in UO as time went on. And then of course WoW came along and perfected the art.

I still lament how UO played out. It quickly became apparent that most players binned into one of two categories, and neither category really fit in with the original UO vision. And of course, one of those two categories drove away the customers in the second category. The rest is history.

replies(1): >>44467882 #
CSMastermind ◴[] No.44467882[source]
UO had such a huge influence on me. It was amazing.
replies(2): >>44469283 #>>44469335 #
andrepd ◴[] No.44469335[source]
It's legitimately insane that perhaps the best MMO, or at least the one which came closer to fulfill the MMO's promise of a shared, persistent, virtual world, was also the first. How come in three decades of technological and creative development did nobody do it better?
replies(1): >>44469841 #
1. djtango ◴[] No.44469841[source]
Because the real world isn't "fun" and video games became more commercially successful when they realised that theme parks are more accessible than simulations.

Gaming was more ambitious and experimental then. The FFXI documentary [0] made me reflect on how much games have changed since. FFXI was heavily inspired by EQ so more credit to EQ but games today are so much more bland and engineered by design. That's how they achieve universal appeal and commercial success - by engineering its engagement. Reminds me of how packaged foods are engineered to be the most addictive by empirically finding the bliss point [1]. In games it will essentially be dopamine per minute and now mainstream games will never do something as crazy as crafting experiences as random and lumpy as real life. Instead every engagement is crafted to never be too frustrating and to give just enough rewards to keep the gamer on that hamster wheel, with the next engagement never being too far away.

Original Soulsborne games felt fresh because FromSoftware put friction and obscurity back in the spotlight.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAJ-cJbOFY

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)