There is no MMO equivalent of a good turn based RPG, but in terms of action RPGs, I think MMOs are miles ahead of any single player game. My favorites are EverQuest and Vanguard and the latter has the best classes I've ever seen, most of the other MMOs disappoint me too much. But I did play WoW for a month and I think the Druid in that game is probably the best thing I've ever played.
*snip*
Yet I like the single player experience. I like being the only hero in the world, the one who drives the story forward, without other people running around getting in my way etc. In an ideal world I would have a nice big open world single player RPG like Witcher 3 or that Mordor Ubisoft game, but instead of terrible combat, I could play as a WoW Druid or an EverQuest Enchanter or Necromancer etc. To me that would be the greatest gaming experience. But it never happens.
What do you think about this? I know a lot of people look down their noses at MMOs and I can understand why, but by this point you must have at least seen some of the great classes they have on those games. Don't you feel cheated when you get a single player RPG like Skyrim and end up running around squirting your one crappy fire spell at dumb easy to kill enemies? I do, very cheated.
Good topic--comparing MMORPGs to RPGs and action-RPGs, right?
There're two ways for me to respond. I can comment about how much I agree with your evaluation of druid/enchanter/jack-of-all-trades classes. I can also comment about the differences between MMORPG and SPRPGs.
I've known for a long time I like jack-of-all-trades. This doesn't mean I want to be overpowered. The ranger was the first class I played in Everquest for more than a level or two. I played a ranger in 1999 for 13 days /played. I came back in 2001 and created a new ranger on Sullon Zek and that's where i remained until 2008 when I transferred to blue. I enjoyed being able to play like a warrior and yet having druid spells. I could kite if needed because root and snare and my bow and spells. Tracking and sow and invisibility and sneak enabled a lot of exploration. I could patch heal on occasion and buffing others helped me to express my social nature. I suffered in groups however and rangers were known for being gimp in that realm. This was the cost I had long expected for my hybrid nature. I tried playing simpler classes like rogues or warriors, but I always felt like there wasn't enough diversity in the things I did. It's like the difference between a shadowknight and wizard in dps role. A shadowknight is using more methods to deliver dps, whereas a wizard uses fewer. I always prefer doing it in varied ways.
I understand the joy of being able to, as you say "some heals, nukes, damage over time, buffs, etc. But at higher levels it can polymorph into a bear, a lion, or a moonkin". All these things allow you to adjust to the situation and it makes you feel involved. It's not simply a matter of mashing the same buttons repeatedly. No, you have to look at the circumstances and only use abilities pertaining to them. Like you said, at the end of the PvP fight, you'd transform to the Moonkin. You didn't do this just at any time, but at the end of a PvP fight. I'm glad you mention Necromancers and Enchanters from Evequest. They're good examples. Did you have any crowd control abilities on your WoW druid? I know you mention enjoying EQ enchanters, so it'd make sense this would make the gameplay even more diverse. That's what this is about! It's about replacing repetitive gameplay with circumstance gameplay. This doesn't require classes be jack-of-all-trades, but in many MMO's expert classes fail to deliver this diversity. The result is dual-classing or multi-classing can add a lot of diversity to the gameplay. It's not overpowering if the MMO is designed to handle it. My only concern is maybe some MMO's are created for people who DON'T want diverse gameplay? Indeed, sometimes I think most players want diverse story and environment and more rewards, but don't care as much about diverse gameplay. Diverse gameplay requires alertness and maybe most players are lazy that way?
Everquest, in its first couple years, was unique in the many balancing mechanisms it used. Monks had weight limits, Iksars couldn't wear plate, small race armor weighed less, ogres were superior warriors but had terrible faction and exp penalty, humans had bad night vision, human cultural armor was cheapest, small races could fit into small spaces, on and on--and these kinds of things were used to balance!! These mechanisms were blurry. Everquest, sadly, removed some of these things as it matured. Many MMO companies have veered away from blurriness to achieve more exact balancing. Sometimes this is good because balancing methods can be inappropriate for too many players, but I think it ultimately waters down the potential exploration and reward when companies are too concerned wiht being exact.
Lastly, I'll look at the differences between MMORPGs and RPGs. My impression has always been single player RPGs have more meat on their bones but no social or competitive nature. If you want to make a fair comparison to something like WoW or Rift, you shouldn't be using examples like Skyrim. Skyrim is more about the open world exploration than it's RPG. Skyrim is hte modern trend of companies making open world exploration and attaching "RPG" to the box. Anybody who's a longtime RPG player will know there're actual RPGs out there. I'm not a modern player, but I'd point to Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape, Fallout 2, Mass Effect 1/2, The Witcher, Fallout: New Vegas, Alpha Protocol and others.
Try out this list:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/rpg-codexs-top-50-crpgs-results-and-reviews.89680/
