Why am I seeing over and over people calling WoW and Rift style games “like EverQuest”?Â Â If you ever played EverQuest you would not be able to make that statement.
- Open World, open and shared dungeons, no instancing
- Harsh Death Penalty – could lose your entire corpse including everything you had if you could not retrieve it (until they added the necro spell), and you could actually lose levels, even from the max level.
- Difficult Leveling – It took a really, really long time and yes there was grinding.
- Almost Forced Grouping, soloing was limited to a couple classes
- Camping spawns
- No Bind on Equip, they had soulbound but those were later.Â You could twink level 50 dungeon items down to a level 1.
- Incredible race/class diversity/starting stats
- No loot pinatas – Gear was not replaced often at all.Â Items were cherished.
- Epic Quests – none of this “go gather me 10 radishes” but quests that took weeks, months
- Non-linear place, unique racial starting areas or even continents.
- Faction system that allowed you to become hated by your own people but liked by another.Â There was no built in “good guys” and “bad guys” 2-faction system.
So tell me, why are WoW and Rift like EverQuest?Â Is it that EQ had levels, a holy trinity, and raids?Â Are you really willing to say that these games are “like EverQuest” because of that?Â Maybe it’s to psychologically avoiding the fact that in reality these are all the ‘WoW model’ and that by saying they’re like EQ you avoid the WoW stigma.Â The games that came before WoW were nothing like WoW.Â Â WoW took a bunch of ideas from everything for a decade before it and polished it up with uber accessibility to form its own model that stands apart completely from EverQuest.
Why does any of this matter?
People today often complain about games being all the same. Then statements like this are made and it makes me question if people really understand what they want or what makes the games play the way they do. My goal is to open even one personâ€™s eyes to the fact that there are differences going unnoticed that are more than inconsequential â€” they are genre defining differences that need to be understood by both developer and player.
Why did WAR turn out so different from DAOC? These two games did -NOT- turn out to be alike at all, yet by this logic everyone would say they were â€œlikeâ€ games. DAOC had clear differences such as the 3 realm system vs 2 realms. DAOC had sequestered PvE and PvP areas. DAOC had persistent battlegrounds instead of instanced. DAOC had an open world. Were they really â€œlikeâ€ games? If we stick to the logic that these games are alike then we are doomed to never see a game try to do the DAOC model again. Same applies to EQ, Tribes, and UO. UO fans â€” is Darkfall like UO? Both are Sandboxes, but true UO players will come out and state these play differently enough that they should not be lumped into the same category. Iâ€™d hate for there to never be another UO because of Darkfall. The little details matter and should not be lost in generalizations.