It could be said that it was a mistake by the developers to make 50-60 take as long as it did. The article linked makes some convincing arguments for the notion that the amount of time required to get to 60 is too great, compared to the available context to experience while doing it.
But on what scale can we judge this mistake? The article said the major concern was that everyone would get to 60 right away, get bored, and leave. That obviously didn't happen, so Kunark was successful in averting that potential crisis.
Of course, averting a potential crisis does not at all excuse an overreaction that causes a real crisis. The article claims that people were frustrated with how long leveling took, and got bored with the idea of leveling in general. It says:
Quote:
|
Most games currently under development are shooting for the persistent PvP and 3d IRC crowds more than true RPG world exploration and character development, simply because of the negative reaction most players have towards levelling after Kunark.
|
Does this sound correct to you? To wit, I can think of some pretty big, or long-lasting games that use levels and are popular today. To wit: Diablo 2, EQ2, WoW, and (gasp!) even the original EQ. Apparently, far from burning people out on leveling up, Kunark left such a good taste in the community's mouth that repeated expansions since have been regular and popular, including repeatedly increasing the level cap.
With the benefit of 10 years' hind-sight, we can probably say that this article's conclusion (leveling up is on the way out thanks to Kunark) was not entirely correct. However, we might also agree that Kunark was a mistake, and that WoW's decision to keep the time /played to level from 1 to max relatively constant, even as the level cap has increased has proven quite successful.
Of course, there's always a counter-example, and in this case it's this server right here. Obviously there are quite a few people who weren't burned out by Kunark, but rather are fired up to do it all over again!