EQ2 - Now comes with WoW Easy Mode

Completely ignored the other portion of that post where I clearly made an analogy to arcade games (you know where you actually went outside and left your house to play games) in which by your definition all arcade games were multiplayer. If "multiplayer" means just having people to interact with verbally, etc. then Pac-man, the original arcade game, was multiplayer lol. Which is hilarious mind you. Sorry but multiplayer actually means to group together, do things together, accomplish goals together in general, not just chat it up.

P.S. - Another comparison for you. By your definition if I'm playing Skyrim and my friend is playing Skyrim at the same time and we're talking on Ventrilo, etc. then Skyrim is multiplayer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..kids. Somewhere along the lines the definition of multiplayer got lost...even by developers.

As for Flames, the entire site got started because their "criticisms" of this game weren't taken on this forum, however what they call criticisms I call ignorance. Criticism should normally contain constructive feedback and not just DO DIS NAO OR I UNSUB, which is what a lot of them did or still do, along with those "choice" words. As far as information? No thank you, I'll just actually read spells, utilize ACT, and learn my own class. Other then that I just look at wiki or zam for quest information.

I had to check which forum I was reading. Based on my browsers address bar, it is the official boards. I am lucky I did not put a wager down on my initial impression, I would have lost.

Enough said.

My 'working' definition of multiplayer games comes from playing MUD's. Lot's of them, in fact. Being as those are the direct ancestors of MMO's, it seems like a pretty good definition to carry over. A chat program doesn't qualify because there's no 'you' represented in a virtual world that interacts with other virtual 'others', if that makes sense. Second Life is ... interesting ... but I'm not sure it qualifies as a game.

Amazingly, you could get an awful lot done in most of those games without needing to group up. When you needed to take on something you couldn't handle, you got some friends. Sometimes you didn't group at all, but went as a bunch of individuals (it had advantages in certain situations).

Maybe that's the key - in a multiplayer game you have the _ability_ to group up -
unless it's just people killing each other, of course

I have to keep saying it don't I? Arcade games were some of the very original video games of our era and when listed as "single player" or "multiplayer" it meant you were either playing by yourself, playing against another person, or the other person was helping you. It didn't mean they were popping a dollar worth of quarters in, standing next to you, and yapping your ear off while doing nothing else. I understand that somewhere along the line the anti-social crowd took over and turned multiplayer into instant messenger but that's not what it is. I could play Skyrim as I said and talk on Ventrilo and by your guys definition be playing multiplayer. It is not just the "ability" to play with others, it's that you're either facing other people or the other people are helping you in your goals or both, it is not just having other people to talk to or an entire arcade scene would have been considered multiplayer. Get real.

In my opinion if you're playing an MMO you should, at the very least, be enticed to group over solo if not forced. Unlike most MMOs where they almost punish you for grouping and allow you to solo almost all content. If that isn't the game for you...well you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game then should you?

You can keep saying it as much as you like. It doesn't make it true. Nobody is suggesting that Pac-Man was multiplayer because you could talk to someone while you play it, and your silly strawman isn't gaining ground because you repeat it over and over and over.

First, why don't you do some homework and find out what a MUD is before you start calling them Arcade Games (or did you happen to quote my post because it was the closest one handy?).

Second, In MY opinion - you're contradicting yourself: If "most MMO's" "almost punish you for grouping" and allow you to solo the game, then I guess grouping isn't as much a part of the core MMO mechanic as you'd like it to be.

Third, don't try to tell me what I should or shouldn't play. It's my $20/month and I'll play any damn game I want with it.
Everquest 2: Free to play MY way

Know what MUDs are...didn't play them though. I quoted your post because of your bottom line about multiplayer.

MMOs have the word "multiplayer" which is what we were discussing.

I'm telling you that the game you're playing is "multiplayer" and based upon where that word came from in the gaming world...this isn't a multiplayer like it should be and as I listed if it was...maybe you shouldn't be playing it?

Well, you still can play them if you want. If you're into role-playing, they're awesome (with live GM's (imms) 'taking over' NPC's to dialogue specifically with you and things like that - custom 'live events' with actual effects you can see out in the game world. And they'll run on just about any computer with an internet connection. Zmud is a telnet client made for MUD's that has lots of nice features (like mapping, and different windows for conversations).

www.mirrorsmud.net <- my wife helped create this one and ran it for a while, was still going pretty strong last I checked.
www.wotmud.net <- another wheel of time based MUD, this one is more PvP focused (but still a lot of roleplay)
MUME <- one of the 'granddaddys' of them all. Haven't looked at in forever, but I can't imagine it being gone.

There's a website: mudconnector or something like that, that lists the muds along with descriptions of playstyle, is roleplaying enforced PvP, etc (submissions are done by the administrators of the games).

To go back to your point: If EQ 2 changed to really push grouping to get things done or earn the decent rewards, I probably wouldn't play it any more. I had my fill of that with FF XI: and I've heard even that game has changed a lot to help players when they're not grouped - ie: solo play stuff.

TBH I've started playing a bit in Clone Wars (one of the perks of All Access so I figured I'd give it a try). Some of the mini-games are really cool, and much more fun than standing in front of a crafting table spamming the same three buttons over and over and over (occasionally switching to the other set of three buttons for a bit). Chests drop like crazy, but there's no way in hell I'm paying 200 SC to open them. If they made it something reasonable (20-25 SC, assuming they actually have good loot), then I might put down ten bucks on a triple SC day and see what's in them, but for that price they can rot...

Don't know why they don't have forums for the game (at least not that I've found). I know it was bashed a lot by people expecting it to be the next SWG or something, but if you look at for what it is, it's pretty fun.

Bringing it to the topic at hand, you're in the same hubs (and combat zones) with other players, but you really can't interact with them much (partly to appease parents who want to keep their kids shielded in some sort of 'cyber bubble'). So I wouldn't really call that one a multi-player game in the way MMO's are (although it does have a form of guilds).

EQ2flame was literally acted as if it was the official forums for the EQ2 community many times during EQ2s life span especially during the days of KoS-RoK. As in the population and forum activity succeeded that of SOE's EQ2 forums and even developers use to talk on there a lot (before the inside SoE drama).

Not sure why you talk down about it especially since your snotty elitist attitude is more intolerable then some of the worse EQ2flames has to offer.

I really don't want to be insulting, but you have done nothing but insulting to everyone else. Acting as if the game or rather the entire genre should only be catering for your niched needs. Then accusing others to be too entitled yet at the same time showing yourself to be incredibly trifled with entitlement issues. Acting as if an entire development team should make a game centered around only a 100 individuals. I'm sorry, but that's not profitable goal. This is a business, you need to make a profit in order to increase growth. You can't expect to cater to a small stagnated community and hope to keep afloat.

Depends on how you define dangerous. I never found launch EQ2 names threatening when traveling. They were so easy to avoid and so out of the way. Even Doomsquall was such a slow moving mob that you would have to dead asleep not to know it was close by.

Original EQ1 had dangerous mobs. The danger though wasn't because the mob was hard to kill if you had the group/raid to take it out. It was more of a social aspect (the original core premise of EQ1, a fully 3d fantasy chat room). Dying along with 20 others if some name came around killing those 10 levels under. It was enjoyable watching that or be part of it. EQ2 never had that, the mobs were too static to their pathing.

You can argue and discuss gameplay theories ect to death on here, but again, nothing is perfect. EQ1 had fun and enjoyable aspects, but it was incredibly flawed, and the original designers like Brad Mcquaid were aware of these flaws, they just never expected the massive success for the game at the time. EQ2 has its flaws, and you can argue which time period of EQ2 was more flawed. I disagree with people's assumption that grinding access quests or other illusionary gate mechanics is challenging. I do agree though that the overlands since RoK have been very boring and void of life (even for solo standards). DoF overland zones being the pinnacle of plenty of enjoyable overland content for me at least.

Once completed on on character, they should give Obol+portal-access+the final cloak to your ALTs AFTER they have run all Advanced-Solo instances once. The questline is really annoying to reapeat over and over. I've done it twice and seen enough. Takes 2 evenings at least to complete on one char - time i could really spend discovering other things.

You shouldn't get the final cloak until you finish the quest required. The rest I'm mostly 'meh' on. Obol should be available in my opinion. Access, it's not new to require someone with it to pull you in. Final reward for every alt just for finishing it on one? That's just stupid.

You should not get any of the quest rewards without doing the quests only one I am alright with is the Obol Unlock for alts. If one person in group has the Access you are fine.

So it's perfectly fine to argue that games should cater to the lowest common denominator, but it's unacceptable for people like Salty to want a game that caters to his play-style?

I'm fairly certain we call that a "double standard" and it's typically something used by those without the mental faculties to apply logic to any given discussion. Niche markets operate all the time, perfectly fine. They simply charge a luxury price. You let me know when Ford competes with Rolls-Royce.

On the 8th run, couple of more to go through, does not matter in the least to me. Try to learn something new on how to run it faster and with less deaths then the previous one.

To make it accurate on your comparision to Rolls Royce, then lets take it to the lowest common denomitor of comparision, high end then compare to the SVT ford vehicles, low end depending on the time frame would either be volkswagon or BMW sice both owned the car manufacturer at one time

Moving toward the lowest common denominatro is the most logical and best business practices unless you are trying to hit a very small niche market as both Rolls Royce and the Ford SVT model line is. Both cannot be done at the same time, if you want the niche market then raise prices to the level of the business that you compared to - the should raise the month subscription to over 100.00 reoccurring or more for the niche market to being in workable capital. thus makes your comment of luxury pricing valid

I would pay that for one that caters to my playstyle. However 100, is just a random number you generated. I imagine the actual number is closer to 50 than it is to 100.

And your Ford vs Rolls comparison is just a random comparison you generated. (which when looking at the cheapest models available for both would put the game closer to $300 a month)

Flames was a resource for the EQ2 community. Was. Past tense. All the gurus and number crunchers quit that site years ago.