Monsters and Memories (Project_N) - Old School Indie MMO
- Thread starter Flobee
- Start date
I think the majority of people here can recognize time sinks quickly; maybe it's a trait of someone playing early MMOs.
However, think about the people who'll spend 1,000+ hours just chopping down trees and smashing rocks on a survival game.
However, think about the people who'll spend 1,000+ hours just chopping down trees and smashing rocks on a survival game.
- 1
Kithani
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 1,623
- 2,250
EVE is nothing like EQ, it’s basically “Microsoft Excel Online Adventures”
- 1
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 20,587
- 17,297
FFXI wasn’t some vindication of EQ's design philosophy, it was just another product of its time. The MMO space was still fresh, alternatives were slim, and players tolerated the rough edges because the novelty outweighed the frustration. The minute WoW showed up with smoother systems, the population bled out fast. If those mechanics were truly timeless, FFXI would still be thriving as-is today instead of clinging to life with niche appeal and heavy modernization.
EVE? That’s not even in the same category. EVE’s success came from systemic, player-driven risk and a unique economic ecosystem, not corpse runs, not hell levels, not downtime disguised as difficulty. Totally different animal. Its systems weren't really EQ-style "friction," they were risk vs. investment systems that actually tied into the core gameplay loop of a PvP sandbox economy. It carved its own lane by being something radically different, not by rehashing EQ's design baggage.
So pointing to FFXI and EVE as if they validate EQ's mechanics is just moving the goalposts. Neither proves that corpse runs, brutal downtime, or tedium-as-design “work.” If anything, they prove the opposite: that the only games that survived long-term were the ones that escaped EQ's shadow and built something new.
- 4,831
- 6,782
I've posted it before in this very thread but people are retarded and think Tedium is what creates magic or the timing of the release before youtube made it magic or whatever dumbshit excuse this week.
Eve online is just as "old school" magic immersion whatever you wanna call it, in fact more so, far more so, than everquest.
And eve online is literally a pvp excel spreadsheet simulator in space, released in 2003 (1 year before wow) but really didn't even hit its stride or critical mass of players until 2006, 2 years after wow release. Its peak in popularity (2006-2013 or so) was at the same time as wow was simplifying the genre for mass market appeal.
So how do 2 games which couldn't be further apart from each other (everquest and eve online) both manage to achieve the exact same immersion/magic sauce/whatever?
I mean one is fantasy swords and boards and elves, pve raid content and the other is pvp spaceships and lasers with pve as a boring, optional afterthought.
When you break it down they have exactly 2 things in common. The world is dangerous (best not to go it alone) and there are consequences to dying. The world is dangerous enough that players have to respect its challenges and organize amongst themselves (forming groups/guilds/etc) to overcome those challenges at the same time that death is painful enough that players use risk assessment in decision-making in game, the combination of these 2 factors results in players assigning value/worth to their characters and seek to preserve them.
That's it. Thats all it takes. Any game that accomplishes those 2 things achieves immersion/magic sauce/whatever.
You don't need 4 hour boat rides, you don't need massive travel time. You dont need 4 hour sand storms where you can only see 5 feet in front of you (although the idea of the sandstorm can be implemented well). The world can be huge or small as long as its dangerous and "convenience" isn't used as a method to avoid danger, it should only be used to avoid tedium.
- 1
Nah I'm not defending tedium mechanics, I was literally grasping for straws because I can't really recall a solid EQ clone other than FFXI. How many WoW quest hub clones have come out though? How are they doing? It's not just mechanics that make or break a game, and you also don't need the game to be immortal or stand the test of time for 25 years to have a good time with it either.
I'm down for a more group centric D&D game at this point, because they are so rare you can't really compare their mechanics because they don't exist.
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 20,587
- 17,297
Fair. WoW clones haven't exactly lit the world on fire either, I'll give you that (FFXIV had good success though). Most of them collapsed under their own bland sameness. But here's the difference: WoW's formula was at least proven to work long enough that dozens of studios tried (and failed) to ride the wave. EQ's "group-centric" formula? Nobody even touches it anymore outside of nostalgia projects, because it's radioactive. If it was really some kind of secret sauce, you'd see studios tripping over themselves to copy it. You don't.
And I'm sure somebody will trot out the 'ole classic, eternal EQ defense: "Well nobody makes a real EQ clone anymore!" That’s just the no true Scotsman fallacy in MMO form. It's moving the goalposts because the evidence doesn't back up the claim. Vanguard, Pantheon, Ember's Adrift, countless “hardcore” kickstarters. They all tried to channel EQ's DNA and fizzled. Not because they weren't "real EQ," but because the design philosophy itself is a dead end.
If corpse runs, XP loss, hell levels, etc. were truly the golden glue that held communities together, then it shouldn't matter whether the wrapper is EQ, Vanguard, or "insert spiritual successor here". People would stick around. But they don't. They show up for nostalgia weekends, have their dose of Polk High flashbacks, and leave.
So the "nobody makes real EQ" argument collapses under its own weight. If EQ's magic was genuinely in those punishing mechanics, then any game faithfully re-creating them would succeed. But history has already answered that question loud and clear: the audience wasn't big enough to sustain it then, and it's even smaller now.
The truth is simpler and harsher: EQ hit because it was first, not because it was best. Everything since has been one long exercise in proving that point.
And honestly, equating "group-centric" with EQ-style tedium is the biggest trap this genre keeps falling into. Group-focused design doesn't need to mean corpse runs, hell levels, or brutal downtime. None of that was group content. It was just friction masquerading as "depth" or "magic". That design didn't foster community, it just forced people to tolerate chores because there was nothing else on the market at the time. The minute players had an alternative, they left in droves. If all you're chasing is the EQ model, you're not actually building a group-centric MMO, you're just building another museum piece that'll attract the same few thousand diehards until the servers shut down.
The real problem isn't that group-centric MMOs don’t exist. It's that too many people think the only way to achieve one is by duct-taping EQ mechanics back together. And that's why we keep going in circles. The only people still singing its praises are the same ones who refuse to admit their best gaming memories had more to do with being 18, unemployed, and wide-eyed on the early internet than anything the mechanics actually delivered. If those mechanics really worked, the Al Bundy's here with their nostalgia goggles glued on would be playing them right now instead of just waxing nostalgic about the "good old days." Instead, everybody keeps begging for remakes. If this genre is ever going to move forward with group-centric games again, it needs to stop worshiping dead mechanics and start inventing new ones. Otherwise, we're just going to keep building prettier graveyards.
- 1
Leaton
Trakanon Raider
- 162
- 121
Game crashed just now (crashed back to server selection), cannot log back in (Relle) any of you no issues? At login, Relle is avail, select Relle and charc is avail and select charc but then loading screen forever and then back to charc selection screen.
Hard to get into it at first but once you get familar with who buys what and the town layout, it gets enjoyable.
Honestly I do not see anything wrong with the way the game is set up, more of an issue for first timers might get turned off due to lack of a little resolve to get familar first.
Hard to get into it at first but once you get familar with who buys what and the town layout, it gets enjoyable.
Honestly I do not see anything wrong with the way the game is set up, more of an issue for first timers might get turned off due to lack of a little resolve to get familar first.
Last edited:
- 2,896
- 3,232