Well he could say that in a manner that wasn't so dishonest.
I mean he's even going as far as saying "I am a HUGE TES fan." yet then follows up with saying "Been playing them from the days of 8 Bit games." which is kind of raising a red flag on it's own right now.
I already linked what the first Elder Scrolls game was, and the fact it is fundamentally the same as what Skyrim is today is a telling fact on it's own. People don't need to lose the aspects that makes a game series what it is when they are presented with new technology, they can expand upon it.
EDIT: And Nan, before you try to act like you have a high horse to ride on over MMO development one should note the fact that several first person open world action MMORPGs have been made. So the technical capacity does exist.
Its not a high horse. I agree many RPGs have been made into a MMO but none by adding group play and your done. If anyone has I am sure its long dead. So I will leave this in your hands. You explain why a single player RPG cant just add group play and have a MMO. I bow to your greater understanding. Or do you hold the same view point?
I'm still waiting for your reply to my post regarding SWG. I see you choose to not reply to it.
Must have missed it, I am replying to like 5 people. Pls quote it for me.
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey I'm all done here, you guys defeat your own logic. it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation at this point.
It's only impossible to have an intellegent discussion if you're unwilling to partake, for instance if you didn't undertstand a point someone made, ask for clarification rather than throwing your hands up in the air.
Let me rephrase. It is impossible to have a logical conversation when the opposing party counterdicts their own arguement throughout the debate.
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey I'm all done here, you guys defeat your own logic. it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation at this point.
It's only impossible to have an intellegent discussion if you're unwilling to partake, for instance if you didn't undertstand a point someone made, ask for clarification rather than throwing your hands up in the air.
Let me rephrase. It is impossible to have a logical conversation when the opposing party counterdicts their own arguement throughout the debate.
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
It wasn't really directed at you, more to your buddy with the green text who dodges any point he can't defeat and hascounterdicted himself for mostly the entire thread.
I still dont see how you can see it any other way then it is. First TES game you can goto any map and see the big stuff from all the games. All you need to do is get to level 50 and you can see it all on one char. Or reroll for that faction and see it that way. Its more game to explore then any TES game before it. Done. As a TES fan this feels very much like a kid in a candy store and I am gona eat myself from one end to the other with a grin till I am the fat kid in the corner asking if I can do it again.
Well, it's important to note that their change allowing players to at least see the other areas on one character is a "decent" though not "great" consolation.
But it's better than the original alternative.
You are right that its a better alternative, but its still a major problem for me. While I appreciate that they are lisnting to us, being segregated from 2/3rds of the population just doesnt seem like fun. And fun is what these games are (supposed) to be all about. I just find it hard to understand why they would take this direction with such a well known franchise. If they are concerned about open world pvp hindering the leveling and enjoyment process of new people, then just make pvp lvl 80 only in the open world. Or better yet turn the dam thing off like gw2 does. Only have pvp in the rvr zone they are creating.
Its SOO frustrating that they are taking this route. I really want to like and play this game, buts its hard when you wont see 2/3rds of the people playing!
Oh yeah, I agree.
As I've said numerous times, the whole reason I came to mmo's was because I thougth they were just like Morrowind but with 3rd person avatars like Neverwinter nights.
I kept seeing on the news how "everquest" was this "world" where players could... "yadda, yadda, yadda".
Morrowind was my first video game where I experienced the game "like a world".
Well, my first mmo was lineage 2 and I found out it wasn't like morrowind. Still, it had a larger world to explore so that was something.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
It wasn't really directed at you, more to your buddy with the green text who dodges any point he can't defeat and hascounterdicted himself for mostly the entire thread.
Not that I have a problem with him, but him and I don't really have like minds on most of his opinions. AT this point I think the topic has reached it's threshhold, it's been done to the point where both sides feel neither side is listening, once that happens it just turns ugly.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
It wasn't really directed at you, more to your buddy with the green text who dodges any point he can't defeat and hascounterdicted himself for mostly the entire thread.
Wait what? My buddy? Not that I have a problem with him, but him and I don't really have like minds on most of his opinions.
Totally my mistake, I implied that when I should not have.
I agree with almost all that was said. I DO NOT like faction lock at all. It's completely un-TES-like. Just to be quick an concise I'll put it in a list.
- No faction lock at all.
- No instanced anything except the dungeons, of which, like they have it now. they offer the instanced and the public dungeons.
- You walk into Cyrodil and your instant pvp flagged, but in the open world you can go into enemy territories and if not PvP flagged then you can't be touched. There, instant solution to lowbies getting ganked while trying to level.
I personally feel Zenimax is just filled with a bunch of old DAoC devs who are looking to ressurect their baby using the TES IP. TES is about story, RPing, and lore. So, therefore, FORGET RvR completely. PvP shouldnt even be a thought in the mind of these devs. Create the PvE side of this game and sprinkle alittle PvP topping and thats it. Instead these devs are doing the complete opposite. They are using PvP as the center of their core game and then wrapping PvE around their little DAoC core.
ESO was the main game I was looking into, but now Arche Age is looking more promising. Very sad I think. I'm still hopeful tho
I agree with almost all that was said. I DO NOT like faction lock at all. It's completely un-TES-like. Just to be quick an concise I'll put it in a list.
- No faction lock at all.
- No instanced anything except the dungeons, of which, like they have it now. they offer the instanced and the public dungeons.
- You walk into Cyrodil and your instant pvp flagged, but in the open world you can go into enemy territories and if not PvP flagged then you can't be touched. There, instant solution to lowbies getting ganked while trying to level.
I personally feel Zenimax is just filled with a bunch of old DAoC devs who are looking to ressurect their baby using the TES IP. TES is about story, RPing, and lore. So, therefore, FORGET RvR completely. PvP shouldnt even be a thought in the mind of these devs. Create the PvE side of this game and sprinkle alittle PvP topping and thats it. Instead these devs are doing the complete opposite. They are using PvP as the center of their core game and then wrapping PvE around their little DAoC core.
ESO was the main game I was looking into, but now Arche Age is looking more promising. Very sad I think. I'm still hopeful tho
Welcome to the logical side.
If they dropped the TES IP on this game and it released on its own merits it would be nothing special (from the info we have been given so far anyways). These threads would not exsist if the TES IP was not attached, because no one would give a rat's ass. The fact that there is such a huge debate only strengthens the fact that something is very wrong here.
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
It wasn't really directed at you, more to your buddy with the green text who dodges any point he can't defeat and hascounterdicted himself for mostly the entire thread.
Wait what? My buddy? Not that I have a problem with him, but him and I don't really have like minds on most of his opinions.
Totally my mistake, I implied that when I should not have.
No biggie..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
EDIT: And Nan, before you try to act like you have a high horse to ride on over MMO development one should note the fact that several first person open world action MMORPGs have been made. So the technical capacity does exist.
Its not a high horse. I agree many RPGs have been made into a MMO but none by adding group play and your done. If anyone has I am sure its long dead. So I will leave this in your hands. You explain why a single player RPG cant just add group play and have a MMO. I bow to your greater understanding. Or do you hold the same view point?
My viewpoint is that the argument is a mischaracterization of the issues.
It's obvious a single player rpg, it you take it as it is, with the engine it uses, in the state you get it at the point of release, wouldn't be able to go back and have an MMO wedged into it.
It's a setup for a straw man argument and a minsomer in regards to defining the games.
If we are to talk about taking what the game series is, and retaining all the gameplay and world aspects while converting it into an MMO, then that's a different argument and one that stands on much more plausible ground.
For example I can cite the Unreal Engine. As the engine esixts even still, you can see that the MMOs that chose to use it had to make compromises and tweaks in order to use the engine. This would be the example of what trying to take a complete game like Skyrim and converting it into an MMO would be.
Now lets take the less bullshit argument and refer to what Sony did with the Unreal Engine. They stripped the networking layer out of the system and built a new one, one that supported the use of the engine's tools, but more stable and capable of hosting considerably more people. With this modified base they built MAG, a shooter that supported ~256 players concurrently on a single map.
That's what a Skyrim MMO would be. Taking the systems then building out and expanding on what is necessary, not gutting the system for a weak compromise. When necessary they take what's there and replace it with something better, though that does not mean different.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If that's your opinion you have every right to it. Personally I have my own, and I don't feel TES has to be set in an alternate reality of itself, to offer a different mechanic, all it really needs is a different motivation/scenario. The scenario up to this point has always been based on a central unknown hero.
This time around it's set in a period of a major war. Now before it's said know that I realize DAOC was not the only design they could have went with, and as I said before, my personal choice would be an SWG-like design. That's relative to my own gaming background though, and I realize that.
WIth a war going on some differences in world setup make a bit of sense. Have they taken that restriction too far? Maybe
And we are free to our opinions.
The issue is how far opinion goes before it coincides with the 'facts' of something. I we make up new lore and new excuses that conflict with those previously established, there is a problem.
When that happens either things need to get retconned, which makes the old titles non-canonical, or the new title will be non-canonical.
Like I said, you don't need to start off in the same way as the single player games. That's something we seem to agree on. And there are plenty of simple ways in which the game doesn't necessarily conflict with the historical game aspects.
The design of game they went with is less of an issue on this aspect as the reasons they choose to justify it. SOme differences might make sense, or they might not.
We've offered suggestions before about how to create a three faction warfare system that circumvents many of the issues with both lore and mechanics that have been complained about, while retaining the ultimate case that there is still a DAoC system governing what is going on for that side of the game.
Entertainingly enough when I read back in this thread alone, those posts have always gotten skipped over to cherry pick the more extreme examples and cases. I wasn't even addressed by anyone until I intentionally made more polar remarks than I would have preferred to make.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Pixel_JockeyFact: TES games in general are open world and do not hinder your choice of class/race/factionFact: TESO is not open world and forces class/race/faction restrictionsHow is this debatable? /thread
He will make it debatable by not debating and continuing to do what he has been doing every single time, ignoring the points and using something not related to back what he is saying as if it helps.You are correct Pixel, and that is why Zenimax is worried enough that they spoke about 1st person and opening faction lands at 50 saying it should help quell the fans worried about it not being TES enough...they never would have spoken like that if there wasnt massive outrage all over the internet, nor would sites like this one be trying so hard to tie non-TES things to TES. The majority is on our side, they know what TES is and what it isnt and the only people backing TESO right now are SOME DaoC fans...because the other DaoC fans are backing CU and could care less about this...thing of a game, heck even Mark Jacobs the CREATOR of DaoC is leaving behind some of these design choices because of how bad they were.
Thanks Jason, I was starting to think it was me for a moment. With that said, hopefully they listen to what the people want and change it. not holding my breath though. Cash is king unfortunatly, and the easiest route to that cash is generally the path taken.
The thing is PVP MMO's aren't really known as cash-cows, they're actually quite a niche. Not sure how such design regardless of IP is designed to "bring in the cash". A popular Ip doesn't make niche designs popular.
I was not aware that this was a PvP MMO. I was under the impression that a PvP MMO has little to no PvE, such as what CU is working twords.
The whole design of the game is based around RvR, every decission made is to support that design, DAOC had all kinds of PVE btw...
But it still uses the Elder Scrolls IP right? And every TES game since the begining has been open world with no restrictions on class/faction/race right? 1+1 = 2 right?
It does use the Elder Scrolls IP, but it's a fundamentally different type of game. You can't get much more different than Single Player and MMO while remaining some type of RPG.
The decision to not write the same kind of game as the TES series was nearly the first decision made. After that point, the decisions on game mechanics are based around whether or not those mechanics make sense in the game they are writing, not whether or not the feature worked in the original TES games.
PvP, faction pride, invisible walls and race locks per faction are all things that would come up in an MMO, but not in a single player game. These things weren't even questions in the single player games. The only way to avoid all these things would have been to not write an MMO.
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying they made the right decisions, but people seem to be acting like there's only one possible way they could have written the game as an MMO, while ignoring the fact that the decisions they had to make while writing the MMO aren't decisions that they would even have considered if the game were a single player game.
** edit ** Removed 'open world exploration'. That comes up whether the game is an MMO or a single player game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Pixel_JockeyFact: TES games in general are open world and do not hinder your choice of class/race/factionFact: TESO is not open world and forces class/race/faction restrictionsHow is this debatable? /thread
He will make it debatable by not debating and continuing to do what he has been doing every single time, ignoring the points and using something not related to back what he is saying as if it helps.You are correct Pixel, and that is why Zenimax is worried enough that they spoke about 1st person and opening faction lands at 50 saying it should help quell the fans worried about it not being TES enough...they never would have spoken like that if there wasnt massive outrage all over the internet, nor would sites like this one be trying so hard to tie non-TES things to TES. The majority is on our side, they know what TES is and what it isnt and the only people backing TESO right now are SOME DaoC fans...because the other DaoC fans are backing CU and could care less about this...thing of a game, heck even Mark Jacobs the CREATOR of DaoC is leaving behind some of these design choices because of how bad they were.
Thanks Jason, I was starting to think it was me for a moment. With that said, hopefully they listen to what the people want and change it. not holding my breath though. Cash is king unfortunatly, and the easiest route to that cash is generally the path taken.
The thing is PVP MMO's aren't really known as cash-cows, they're actually quite a niche. Not sure how such design regardless of IP is designed to "bring in the cash". A popular Ip doesn't make niche designs popular.
I was not aware that this was a PvP MMO. I was under the impression that a PvP MMO has little to no PvE, such as what CU is working twords.
The whole design of the game is based around RvR, every decission made is to support that design, DAOC had all kinds of PVE btw...
But it still uses the Elder Scrolls IP right? And every TES game since the begining has been open world with no restrictions on class/faction/race right? 1+1 = 2 right?
It does use the Elder Scrolls IP, but it's a fundamentally different type of game. You can't get much more different than Single Player and MMO while remaining some type of RPG.
The decision to not write the same kind of game as the TES series was nearly the first decision made. After that point, the decisions on game mechanics are based around whether or not those mechanics make sense in the game they are writing, not whether or not the feature worked in the original TES games.
PvP, faction pride, invisible walls and race locks per faction are all things that would come up in an MMO, but not in a single player game. These things weren't even questions in the single player games. The only way to avoid all these things would have been to not write an MMO.
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying they made the right decisions, but people seem to be acting like there's only one possible way they could have written the game as an MMO, while ignoring the fact that the decisions they had to make while writing the MMO aren't decisions that they would even have considered if the game were a single player game.
** edit ** Removed 'open world exploration'. That comes up whether the game is an MMO or a single player game.
I see your point. the problem I have with it is that it could be done properly and hold all the core TES values (open world, no invisible walls, no faction lock) in addition to the DaoC-like PvP side of the game. Zen chose not to do this. There have been plenty of open world/near-seemless MMO game worlds with more than 2 factions. To say this cannot be done is 100% a lie. Again, they have CHOOSEN not to. To specualte why they choose not to, I personally (due to MMO trends as of late) equate it to "making as much money as possible with the least amount of work" aka cash grab. It would certainly cost more money and more man power to make the game open world, but to say it cannot be done is not true. SWG did it over 10 years ago (not advocating anything for SWG, but it is a good example of open world multi faction with little to no race/class/faction restrictions).
It does use the Elder Scrolls IP, but it's a fundamentally different type of game. You can't get much more different than Single Player and MMO while remaining some type of RPG.
The decision to not write the same kind of game as the TES series was nearly the first decision made. After that point, the decisions on game mechanics are based around whether or not those mechanics make sense in the game they are writing, not whether or not the feature worked in the original TES games.
PvP, faction pride, invisible walls and race locks per faction are all things that would come up in an MMO, but not in a single player game. These things weren't even questions in the single player games. The only way to avoid all these things would have been to not write an MMO.
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying they made the right decisions, but people seem to be acting like there's only one possible way they could have written the game as an MMO, while ignoring the fact that the decisions they had to make while writing the MMO aren't decisions that they would even have considered if the game were a single player game.
** edit ** Removed 'open world exploration'. That comes up whether the game is an MMO or a single player game.
Not quite.
'Faction Pride' is a notion that's relatively nebulous to begin with. For the sake of this though I am mainly noting that such a thing can come from a multiplayer or single player game just as equally as the basis for having factions is built solely on the premise of having them in the first place.
Skyrim for example had the war between Imperials and Stormcloaks. Not once have I ever had the inclination to side with the Stormcloaks in any playthrough because I disagree with the logic that faction presents, and consequently I take pride in standing by the empire.
Or the questline of New Vegas. As a single player game, you were tossed into a situation where you had four-ish choices of who you could ultimately ally yourself with, and that choice could bring a strong sense of pride in the side you chose to represent if you were the kind of person to do so.
A single player game is not fundamentally different from an MMO, save for the obvious fact that one is single player and the other is multi player.
This is also a notion evidenced by the way in which many MMOs can and are played.
For example SWTOR. People have called that a massively single player game before for a reason. Because at a technical level the game was designed to be very personally focused throughout even though it existed in a shared world.
On the flipside there's the likes of Spore which also had the billing of being massively single player, but in a much different way. As you are playing a single player game, but much of the game world becomes fleshed out by the contributions of other users.
So the claim of compromise over the distnction between single and multi player may not necessarily be wrong, but it's presented falsely.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This is what bugs me, I'm not excited by the notion of a doac 2 by any stretch, what I want is TES style questing, lore, etcc.. That I can experience with friends, I'll PVP in sandbox games or some FFA systems, but in themeparks not so much, too arbitrary, too guided... not enough player ownership to care, etc...
To think as you do is just completely short-sighted.
TESO is being designed AROUND RvRvR though so to think as you do is just completely short-sighted because you are defending it just because of the TES name being tagged on it and even stating you are not going to take part in the PvP because its too arbitrary and guided...wow, the entire BASE game, but you are still going to defend it just because the name is TES...talk about crazy.
So again, it falls back to what so many are saying just in this thread let alone on EVERY single TES based website...if this didnt have the name TES, would anyone think it was ripping the gameplay off? No. because it doesnt even remotely try to, everything about the TES games was changed to fit standard MMO gameplay, gameplay that has the genre rooted in a whole lot of MEH. Now a TES sandbox open world game, that, that would be REFRESHING to the genre.
This is what bugs me, I'm not excited by the notion of a doac 2 by any stretch, what I want is TES style questing, lore, etcc.. That I can experience with friends, I'll PVP in sandbox games or some FFA systems, but in themeparks not so much, too arbitrary, too guided... not enough player ownership to care, etc...
To think as you do is just completely short-sighted.
TESO is being designed AROUND RvRvR though so to think as you do is just completely short-sighted because you are defending it just because of the TES name being tagged on it and even stating you are not going to take part in the PvP because its too arbitrary and guided...wow, the entire BASE game, but you are still going to defend it just because the name is TES...talk about crazy.
So again, it falls back to what so many are saying just in this thread let alone on EVERY single TES based website...if this didnt have the name TES, would anyone think it was ripping the gameplay off? No. because it doesnt even remotely try to, everything about the TES games was changed to fit standard MMO gameplay, gameplay that has the genre rooted in a whole lot of MEH. Now a TES sandbox open world game, that, that would be REFRESHING to the genre.
Only part of the game thats DAoC is the 3 faction war. Rest is all TES. Lore, quest style, combat and art. Even the maps are designed after the games. All your picking on is one feature, cant go everywhere from level 1. Thats the only thing that makes this not a TES game. You really need to back up and take a look at this. You even have this side fun stuff like joining the Mage guild and that deepens the exploring in the game. If each factions maps are large and expansive your problem with the game is moot. I would rather the 2 factions maps be the level 50+ and 50++ that add elder game thats a challenge then being able to explore a sea of grey mobs.
Well I've ranted previously about a lot more than that one aspect.
Aside from that, if you have grey mobs in a game then you're building the game to have a lot of static content.
If you want it to retain challenge but don't want to abandon a leveling scale, do what GW2 did and scale players to zones? suddenly the severe dropoff of danger stops happening. Making the counterargument presented equally moot.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well I've ranted previously about a lot more than that one aspect.
Aside from that, if you have grey mobs in a game then you're building the game to have a lot of static content.
If you want it to retain challenge but don't want to abandon a leveling scale, do what GW2 did and scale players to zones? suddenly the severe dropoff of danger stops happening. Making the counterargument presented equally moot.
Ya that could work to but I have to say I was not a huge fan of it for a few reason. The biggest is they seem to have a hard time scaling the mobs. Sometimes there way to easy and sometimes trash mobs are deadly. Between level jumps in mobs, like here they are level 25 but as you cross the hill they are level 29 and you are down leveled to 24 and all around you see people dieing. I get that means tweeking but if I had to pick between a down level system and a 50+ and a 50++ map that was giving me elder game and rewarding me for that. I would pick the latter.
Fair enough. The point was that there isn't one solution, and that the problem is only present if other methods aren't considered.
Personally my solution would be to remove levels from mobs entirely and tier them by behaviors and traits instead. This would mean vertical progress isn't as dramatic and is more dependent on proficiency in known skills, but I find it to be a method that eliminates the bizarre nature of level scaling and provides a much more consistent experience.
Only reason I didn't suggest this here is because I know it diverges from the way TES itself operates, but the other option was one that was possible to present while retaining either the present leveling/class system or a more traditional TES mechanic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by jtcgs Didnt need to read past "Coincidence? Probably not." to know this is just an article being written due to MONEY being given to them. There isnt a single person, not even hardcore DaoC fans that can argue that it is not a coincidence because THERE ARE NO DAOC FACTIONS LOCKED BEHIND AN INVISIBLE WALL clones out there, no one but the makers of that game thought it was a good enough idea to do it in another game...Coincidence? Duh.No amount of articles is going to change the minds of the TES fans that have been arguing against this crap move on every single TES site, its a small box being made for a game meant for an open world. Deal with that fact, and the fact you are not going to change the minds of those pissed off with anything less than a TES MMO with an open world.
They will deal with it by sleeping on beds made of soft, cushy money. Seriously. It won't be like that cheap, paper money we get. It will be soft and fluffy and it will sing them to sleep at night. People make a big deal out of the 'ideals' behind games, and whether they are 'true' MMOs, 'true' TES games (true 'SW' games), etc., but it's the basic game mechanics that kill the games. Are the environments static, or do they look lively? Is there plenty of content at release covering linear, repeatable and nonlinear activities? Do all the buttons work? Do the graphics look good and consistent? If they get all the basic gaming stuff nailed down, the rules that aren't like the single player games won't matter that much. It sounds like they've gotten the basics nailed down. At least I haven't seen any complaints about that stuff yet. The recurring complaint is that the game won't be like the single player games. Well, yeah. It's an MMO. It won't be anything like the single player games. ** edit ** I think of it like this. They could write it using the "Man With The Iron Fists" method, where they try to be just like the predecessors, and fail. "Man With The Iron Fists" tries to recreate old Kung Fu movies and tries too hard to be too much like those old Kung Fu movies. It's just bad. The other method is the "Evil Dead" method, where the people making the movie make a movie that stands on its own, but references enough of the predecessor that you know where it's coming from. If you've never seen the predecessor, and don't care about it, you still get a good product, but if you've seen the predecessor, the movie is even better. It sounds like Zenimax is going with the "Evil Dead" method, which doesn't guarantee success, but it at least avoids the guaranteed failure of the "Man With The Iron Fists" method.
I could imagine boat loads more money if they focused more on the Elder Scrolls side of the game than they do the Dark Age of Camelot side. Actually, I don't have to imagine, we know the relative sales of DAoC and the Elder Scrolls games, don't we. Even more so if they allow for fully realized end game PvE that lets you play and progress without having to do a single bit of PvP.
Well of course you can imagine it that way. Why would you imagine it in a way that doesn't support your point of view? That doesn't even make sense.
There are single player RPG that sold worse than DAoC and those games did not have PvP. The argument that writing TESO without PvP or without three faction PvP would result in greater sales isn't a good one. For one, it involves changing history (rewriting TESO) to support the argument.
I do agree about the PvE for long term players. Having a PvP focus is going to limit the audience and as dynamic as PvP can be, it gets repetitive. I would love to see a really good PvE focused end game. I don't really think I'll see it, but I'd like to. For that matter, I'd like to see more of a sandbox focus in a game with the budget that TESO has. I don't think I'll see it, but I'd like to.
Anyway, their money is going to make them happy. The game will follow the same sales and retention arcs as pretty much every other video game, but it's going to make them boatloads of money. Again, this is assuming they get the basic game mechanics down pat. If something like their version of talent trees is copied from WoW, and doesn't work right, none of the other stuff in the game really matters.
You're the one not making sense. The point is that DAoC did not sell that many boxes in comparison to even the lowest rated ES game. PvP was not my factor in that, it is merely the numbers, period. Which audience has the potential to make them more money, RvR fanatics or ES fanatics? I'd say the numbers are pretty darn obvious.
DAoC did great in its time. MMOs were still rather new on the market with EQ being the big man on campus. That said, FACTION LOCK is a great idea for an rvr based game. Only people who have not played DAoC will disagree. I have much respect for the devs for sticking to their guns and not caving to the blind fan boys who desperately want to ruin ESO before its even released.
"If they were to remove faction lock it would ruin the entire RVR aspect of the game." - Plato, 340 BC
"I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."
I'm sorry, but IMHO there needs to be class imbalances. If everyone is the same, no one is different. Look at what WoW did. Back in vanilla, the factions were different in the fact their were class differences. Horde had shamans and Alliance had paladins as their faction specific classes and it was good time then in PvP. Then Burning Crusade hit and that was the end of that. No one had an advantage, only advantage was getting more people to one area faster than the others in all battlegrounds. The unique feel was gone as was the fun of having to face a class you could not play and get used to unless you rolled the other faction. Then the whiners really hit and the crying was unbearable to the developers and to shut them up they made everyone the same. No one could be unique in their class builds anymore cause the changed talent points and then took them away and gave you a choice of a class spell every 15 lvls. I really enjoyed WoW and played thru Mists hoping to be able to continue enjoying it, but sadly that is gone along with any uniqueness of any class or faction.
And why cant Mario still be fixing pipes? Forget this side scrolling idea where he saves his girlfriend Peach. You know what lets rewind everything and go back to 8 bit graphics. Thats how TES started. Lets rewind WoW and have it only be a RTS. By your standard we would miss out on a lot of great games that started from something else.
What? So confused. WTB more logic.
Replying to what you said in red. Games grow and change and just because the single player game had it does not mean its needs to be in the MMO. Sure over all it needs to feel like TES. It must have story and lore to fit but Locked factions does not break this game. Just like any video game that started out as a RTS or a single player RPG. When it makes a jump into 3D or a MMO or any other medium. Its time for change to fit that. Just like a book made into a movie it cant keep all the same elements.
Except they could keep all the same elements and give you what you want at the same time, but they choose not to. Everyone could be happy here, they CHOOSE not to do it, not that it can't be done.
Thats what kills me from people on your side of this. You think you speak for all TES fans and you dont. I am a HUGE TES fan. Been playing them from the days of 8 Bit games. As a TES fan I LOVE this current design. At best if they remade the game there would be a different set of fans who would be happy and another set that would be upset.
Foodle just ignore them, you're not gonna change their mind because they have an agenda which is clear as hell. We all know that there are millions of TES fans looking forward to ESO as evident by the Facebook likes (over a million) tons of positive feedback since the 1st press event in October, many more positive hype since Pax. Not to mention the myriad of supportive and eager fans on very popular websites like TESOF and Tamriel Foundry and the many Podcasts which get rave reviews.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
DAoC did great in its time. MMOs were still rather new on the market with EQ being the big man on campus. That said, FACTION LOCK is a great idea for an rvr based game. Only people who have not played DAoC will disagree. I have much respect for the devs for sticking to their guns and not caving to the blind fan boys who desperately want to ruin ESO before its even released.
"If they were to remove faction lock it would ruin the entire RVR aspect of the game." - Plato, 340 BC
DAoC actually outsold and had more concurrent subs then EQ for a period of time in late 2002, early 2003.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Comments
Must have missed it, I am replying to like 5 people. Pls quote it for me.
What do you mean by this? I've not seen anyone do so, everyone seems pretty dead set on their stance to me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It wasn't really directed at you, more to your buddy with the green text who dodges any point he can't defeat and hascounterdicted himself for mostly the entire thread.
Oh yeah, I agree.
As I've said numerous times, the whole reason I came to mmo's was because I thougth they were just like Morrowind but with 3rd person avatars like Neverwinter nights.
I kept seeing on the news how "everquest" was this "world" where players could... "yadda, yadda, yadda".
Morrowind was my first video game where I experienced the game "like a world".
Well, my first mmo was lineage 2 and I found out it wasn't like morrowind. Still, it had a larger world to explore so that was something.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not that I have a problem with him, but him and I don't really have like minds on most of his opinions. AT this point I think the topic has reached it's threshhold, it's been done to the point where both sides feel neither side is listening, once that happens it just turns ugly.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Totally my mistake, I implied that when I should not have.
I agree with almost all that was said. I DO NOT like faction lock at all. It's completely un-TES-like. Just to be quick an concise I'll put it in a list.
- No faction lock at all.
- No instanced anything except the dungeons, of which, like they have it now. they offer the instanced and the public dungeons.
- You walk into Cyrodil and your instant pvp flagged, but in the open world you can go into enemy territories and if not PvP flagged then you can't be touched. There, instant solution to lowbies getting ganked while trying to level.
I personally feel Zenimax is just filled with a bunch of old DAoC devs who are looking to ressurect their baby using the TES IP. TES is about story, RPing, and lore. So, therefore, FORGET RvR completely. PvP shouldnt even be a thought in the mind of these devs. Create the PvE side of this game and sprinkle alittle PvP topping and thats it. Instead these devs are doing the complete opposite. They are using PvP as the center of their core game and then wrapping PvE around their little DAoC core.
ESO was the main game I was looking into, but now Arche Age is looking more promising. Very sad I think. I'm still hopeful tho
Welcome to the logical side.
If they dropped the TES IP on this game and it released on its own merits it would be nothing special (from the info we have been given so far anyways). These threads would not exsist if the TES IP was not attached, because no one would give a rat's ass. The fact that there is such a huge debate only strengthens the fact that something is very wrong here.
No biggie..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
My viewpoint is that the argument is a mischaracterization of the issues.
It's obvious a single player rpg, it you take it as it is, with the engine it uses, in the state you get it at the point of release, wouldn't be able to go back and have an MMO wedged into it.
It's a setup for a straw man argument and a minsomer in regards to defining the games.
If we are to talk about taking what the game series is, and retaining all the gameplay and world aspects while converting it into an MMO, then that's a different argument and one that stands on much more plausible ground.
For example I can cite the Unreal Engine. As the engine esixts even still, you can see that the MMOs that chose to use it had to make compromises and tweaks in order to use the engine. This would be the example of what trying to take a complete game like Skyrim and converting it into an MMO would be.
Now lets take the less bullshit argument and refer to what Sony did with the Unreal Engine. They stripped the networking layer out of the system and built a new one, one that supported the use of the engine's tools, but more stable and capable of hosting considerably more people. With this modified base they built MAG, a shooter that supported ~256 players concurrently on a single map.
That's what a Skyrim MMO would be. Taking the systems then building out and expanding on what is necessary, not gutting the system for a weak compromise. When necessary they take what's there and replace it with something better, though that does not mean different.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And we are free to our opinions.
The issue is how far opinion goes before it coincides with the 'facts' of something. I we make up new lore and new excuses that conflict with those previously established, there is a problem.
When that happens either things need to get retconned, which makes the old titles non-canonical, or the new title will be non-canonical.
Like I said, you don't need to start off in the same way as the single player games. That's something we seem to agree on. And there are plenty of simple ways in which the game doesn't necessarily conflict with the historical game aspects.
The design of game they went with is less of an issue on this aspect as the reasons they choose to justify it. SOme differences might make sense, or they might not.
We've offered suggestions before about how to create a three faction warfare system that circumvents many of the issues with both lore and mechanics that have been complained about, while retaining the ultimate case that there is still a DAoC system governing what is going on for that side of the game.
Entertainingly enough when I read back in this thread alone, those posts have always gotten skipped over to cherry pick the more extreme examples and cases. I wasn't even addressed by anyone until I intentionally made more polar remarks than I would have preferred to make.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It does use the Elder Scrolls IP, but it's a fundamentally different type of game. You can't get much more different than Single Player and MMO while remaining some type of RPG.
The decision to not write the same kind of game as the TES series was nearly the first decision made. After that point, the decisions on game mechanics are based around whether or not those mechanics make sense in the game they are writing, not whether or not the feature worked in the original TES games.
PvP, faction pride, invisible walls and race locks per faction are all things that would come up in an MMO, but not in a single player game. These things weren't even questions in the single player games. The only way to avoid all these things would have been to not write an MMO.
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying they made the right decisions, but people seem to be acting like there's only one possible way they could have written the game as an MMO, while ignoring the fact that the decisions they had to make while writing the MMO aren't decisions that they would even have considered if the game were a single player game.
** edit **
Removed 'open world exploration'. That comes up whether the game is an MMO or a single player game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I see your point. the problem I have with it is that it could be done properly and hold all the core TES values (open world, no invisible walls, no faction lock) in addition to the DaoC-like PvP side of the game. Zen chose not to do this. There have been plenty of open world/near-seemless MMO game worlds with more than 2 factions. To say this cannot be done is 100% a lie. Again, they have CHOOSEN not to. To specualte why they choose not to, I personally (due to MMO trends as of late) equate it to "making as much money as possible with the least amount of work" aka cash grab. It would certainly cost more money and more man power to make the game open world, but to say it cannot be done is not true. SWG did it over 10 years ago (not advocating anything for SWG, but it is a good example of open world multi faction with little to no race/class/faction restrictions).
Not quite.
'Faction Pride' is a notion that's relatively nebulous to begin with. For the sake of this though I am mainly noting that such a thing can come from a multiplayer or single player game just as equally as the basis for having factions is built solely on the premise of having them in the first place.
Skyrim for example had the war between Imperials and Stormcloaks. Not once have I ever had the inclination to side with the Stormcloaks in any playthrough because I disagree with the logic that faction presents, and consequently I take pride in standing by the empire.
Or the questline of New Vegas. As a single player game, you were tossed into a situation where you had four-ish choices of who you could ultimately ally yourself with, and that choice could bring a strong sense of pride in the side you chose to represent if you were the kind of person to do so.
A single player game is not fundamentally different from an MMO, save for the obvious fact that one is single player and the other is multi player.
This is also a notion evidenced by the way in which many MMOs can and are played.
For example SWTOR. People have called that a massively single player game before for a reason. Because at a technical level the game was designed to be very personally focused throughout even though it existed in a shared world.
On the flipside there's the likes of Spore which also had the billing of being massively single player, but in a much different way. As you are playing a single player game, but much of the game world becomes fleshed out by the contributions of other users.
So the claim of compromise over the distnction between single and multi player may not necessarily be wrong, but it's presented falsely.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
TESO is being designed AROUND RvRvR though so to think as you do is just completely short-sighted because you are defending it just because of the TES name being tagged on it and even stating you are not going to take part in the PvP because its too arbitrary and guided...wow, the entire BASE game, but you are still going to defend it just because the name is TES...talk about crazy.
So again, it falls back to what so many are saying just in this thread let alone on EVERY single TES based website...if this didnt have the name TES, would anyone think it was ripping the gameplay off? No. because it doesnt even remotely try to, everything about the TES games was changed to fit standard MMO gameplay, gameplay that has the genre rooted in a whole lot of MEH. Now a TES sandbox open world game, that, that would be REFRESHING to the genre.
Only part of the game thats DAoC is the 3 faction war. Rest is all TES. Lore, quest style, combat and art. Even the maps are designed after the games. All your picking on is one feature, cant go everywhere from level 1. Thats the only thing that makes this not a TES game. You really need to back up and take a look at this. You even have this side fun stuff like joining the Mage guild and that deepens the exploring in the game. If each factions maps are large and expansive your problem with the game is moot. I would rather the 2 factions maps be the level 50+ and 50++ that add elder game thats a challenge then being able to explore a sea of grey mobs.
Well I've ranted previously about a lot more than that one aspect.
Aside from that, if you have grey mobs in a game then you're building the game to have a lot of static content.
If you want it to retain challenge but don't want to abandon a leveling scale, do what GW2 did and scale players to zones? suddenly the severe dropoff of danger stops happening. Making the counterargument presented equally moot.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Ya that could work to but I have to say I was not a huge fan of it for a few reason. The biggest is they seem to have a hard time scaling the mobs. Sometimes there way to easy and sometimes trash mobs are deadly. Between level jumps in mobs, like here they are level 25 but as you cross the hill they are level 29 and you are down leveled to 24 and all around you see people dieing. I get that means tweeking but if I had to pick between a down level system and a 50+ and a 50++ map that was giving me elder game and rewarding me for that. I would pick the latter.
Fair enough. The point was that there isn't one solution, and that the problem is only present if other methods aren't considered.
Personally my solution would be to remove levels from mobs entirely and tier them by behaviors and traits instead. This would mean vertical progress isn't as dramatic and is more dependent on proficiency in known skills, but I find it to be a method that eliminates the bizarre nature of level scaling and provides a much more consistent experience.
Only reason I didn't suggest this here is because I know it diverges from the way TES itself operates, but the other option was one that was possible to present while retaining either the present leveling/class system or a more traditional TES mechanic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You're the one not making sense. The point is that DAoC did not sell that many boxes in comparison to even the lowest rated ES game. PvP was not my factor in that, it is merely the numbers, period. Which audience has the potential to make them more money, RvR fanatics or ES fanatics? I'd say the numbers are pretty darn obvious.
DAoC did great in its time. MMOs were still rather new on the market with EQ being the big man on campus. That said, FACTION LOCK is a great idea for an rvr based game. Only people who have not played DAoC will disagree. I have much respect for the devs for sticking to their guns and not caving to the blind fan boys who desperately want to ruin ESO before its even released.
"If they were to remove faction lock it would ruin the entire RVR aspect of the game." - Plato, 340 BC
"I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."
I'm sorry, but IMHO there needs to be class imbalances. If everyone is the same, no one is different. Look at what WoW did. Back in vanilla, the factions were different in the fact their were class differences. Horde had shamans and Alliance had paladins as their faction specific classes and it was good time then in PvP. Then Burning Crusade hit and that was the end of that. No one had an advantage, only advantage was getting more people to one area faster than the others in all battlegrounds. The unique feel was gone as was the fun of having to face a class you could not play and get used to unless you rolled the other faction. Then the whiners really hit and the crying was unbearable to the developers and to shut them up they made everyone the same. No one could be unique in their class builds anymore cause the changed talent points and then took them away and gave you a choice of a class spell every 15 lvls. I really enjoyed WoW and played thru Mists hoping to be able to continue enjoying it, but sadly that is gone along with any uniqueness of any class or faction.
Foodle just ignore them, you're not gonna change their mind because they have an agenda which is clear as hell. We all know that there are millions of TES fans looking forward to ESO as evident by the Facebook likes (over a million) tons of positive feedback since the 1st press event in October, many more positive hype since Pax. Not to mention the myriad of supportive and eager fans on very popular websites like TESOF and Tamriel Foundry and the many Podcasts which get rave reviews.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
DAoC actually outsold and had more concurrent subs then EQ for a period of time in late 2002, early 2003.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!