This goes against everything ES games ever stood for. To me this smells like just another miserable attempt to cash in on IP sentimentality. I remember that once upon a time Bethesda said they'll never ever do an ES mmo because that goes against their whole philosophy...
To put it succintly, Bethesda doesnt' like mmos. They don't understand them, they loathe them, they wouldn't have anything to do with them if it weren't for the money. So, they gave the dirty job to an outside company in order not to soil themselves with mmo development. At the time, I thought this attitude tragic - that it is exactly Bethesda's approach which is needed to bring some fresh air into the genre. However, instead of doing the right thing, Bethesa chose to go the cynical i-wash-my-hands route. They gave another company the job to create an ES-based mmo which will, in essence, be a parody of everything that is bad with mmos today.
When the dust settles, Bethesda will calmly collect their IP money and say "You see? We told you that MMOs suck."
This goes against everything ES games ever stood for. To me this smells like just another miserable attempt to cash in on IP sentimentality. I remember that once upon a time Bethesda said they'll never ever do an ES mmo because that goes against their whole philosophy...
To put it succintly, Bethesda doesnt' like mmos. They don't understand them, they loathe them, they wouldn't have anything to do with them if it weren't for the money. So, they gave the dirty job to an outside company in order not to soil themselves with mmo development. At the time, I thought this attitude tragic - that it is exactly Bethesda's approach which is needed to bring some fresh air into the genre. However, instead of doing the right thing, Bethesa chose to go the cynical i-wash-my-hands route. They gave another company the job to create an ES-based mmo which will, in essence, be a parody of everything that is bad with mmos today.
When the dust settles, Bethesda will calmly collect their IP money and say "You see? We told you that MMOs suck."
Could be I was wrong there regarding the particulars of their corporate structure.
However, my point still stands. The team that made Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim is NOT the team that is making ES Online. I'm sorry, even the title "ES Online" reeks of a half-hearted cash grab at the juicy mmo market. I've made it a point of avoiding all mmos named "xxx Online" made in the past 10 years.
(Am I the only one who finds the very word "Online" cheesy in the second decade of 21st century? It's like saying something is "atomic" from 1960s onward or "computer" since 1993 or so...)
This goes against everything ES games ever stood for. To me this smells like just another miserable attempt to cash in on IP sentimentality. I remember that once upon a time Bethesda said they'll never ever do an ES mmo because that goes against their whole philosophy...
To put it succintly, Bethesda doesnt' like mmos. They don't understand them, they loathe them, they wouldn't have anything to do with them if it weren't for the money. So, they gave the dirty job to an outside company in order not to soil themselves with mmo development. At the time, I thought this attitude tragic - that it is exactly Bethesda's approach which is needed to bring some fresh air into the genre. However, instead of doing the right thing, Bethesa chose to go the cynical i-wash-my-hands route. They gave another company the job to create an ES-based mmo which will, in essence, be a parody of everything that is bad with mmos today.
When the dust settles, Bethesda will calmly collect their IP money and say "You see? We told you that MMOs suck."
Could be I was wrong there regarding the particulars of their corporate structure.
However, my point still stands. The team that made Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim is NOT the team that is making ES Online. I'm sorry, even the title "ES Online" reeks of a half-hearted cash grab at the juicy mmo market. I've made it a point of avoiding all mmos named "xxx Online" made in the past 10 years.
(Am I the only one who finds the very word "Online" cheesy in the second decade of 21st century? It's like saying something is "atomic" from 1960s onward or "computer" since 1993 or so...)
enimax Media is the parent company which owns both Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda Game Studios. The two sibling studios have a close working relationship which has allowed ZOS to collaborate effectively with Bethesda in order to maintain internal consistency in lore, geography, and art design. Todd Howard is personally involved to sign off on major decisions regarding the direction of the IP. (GI1),(GI2)
This goes against everything ES games ever stood for. To me this smells like just another miserable attempt to cash in on IP sentimentality. I remember that once upon a time Bethesda said they'll never ever do an ES mmo because that goes against their whole philosophy...
To put it succintly, Bethesda doesnt' like mmos. They don't understand them, they loathe them, they wouldn't have anything to do with them if it weren't for the money. So, they gave the dirty job to an outside company in order not to soil themselves with mmo development. At the time, I thought this attitude tragic - that it is exactly Bethesda's approach which is needed to bring some fresh air into the genre. However, instead of doing the right thing, Bethesa chose to go the cynical i-wash-my-hands route. They gave another company the job to create an ES-based mmo which will, in essence, be a parody of everything that is bad with mmos today.
When the dust settles, Bethesda will calmly collect their IP money and say "You see? We told you that MMOs suck."
Could be I was wrong there regarding the particulars of their corporate structure.
However, my point still stands. The team that made Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim is NOT the team that is making ES Online. I'm sorry, even the title "ES Online" reeks of a half-hearted cash grab at the juicy mmo market. I've made it a point of avoiding all mmos named "xxx Online" made in the past 10 years.
(Am I the only one who finds the very word "Online" cheesy in the second decade of 21st century? It's like saying something is "atomic" from 1960s onward or "computer" since 1993 or so...)
enimax Media is the parent company which owns both Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda Game Studios. The two sibling studios have a close working relationship which has allowed ZOS to collaborate effectively with Bethesda in order to maintain internal consistency in lore, geography, and art design. Todd Howard is personally involved to sign off on major decisions regarding the direction of the IP. (GI1),(GI2)
As far as the concept of the Megaserver goes regarding multiple and instanced zones, I'm all for it.
My experience in TES has always been accompanied by the feeling of 'you against the world'. This would be completely ruined if I were to play in a zone with 100 other people in it. Quest hubs being filled to capacity, strangely morphed-faced characters running around tea-bagging eachother. That ruins immersion for me, I hate that.
I would love having the option, if I could, to play in a zone with less people in it(Maybe the 'Lone Wolf' option they spoke about). I don't mind running into people every now and then, I just don't want every area being crowded with them. So if it works like this, I'm definitely in favor of the Megaserver.
As far as the rest of the game goes, it does indeed sound mildly promising. I've always wanted an option to play TES with my friends, even since the time of Morrowind and later Oblivion. Having said that, I've always been afraid of how MP/MMO could potentially drag the IP down in a pile of dirt. It sounds however like they are somewhat on the right track.
I dont think they can make it work, so many "filters" to sort. age, gender, pvp, pve, rp, it's going to be a mess, really I dont think they can make it happen.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Please mmo devs of the world.
Make a new mmo with zero bloody instancing. These games were the best - daoc, eve etc.. I'm sure pveers feel the same about EQ or whatever too.
There are at least a few indie games in development with exactly the things you and I want.. I'm investing in each of them in the hopes that at least one of them makes it..
"You are all going to poop yourselves." BillMurphy
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
The Elder Scrolls is why I still have a pc for gaming. No other game can make me jump out of my seat the way ES does. I'm afraid some for what zoning the open world will do, but even as the game is now when you go into an instance, there is a break in the immersion. You just pick right back up a couple seconds later though. I just don't feel like zones, and instancing are as big of a problem as phasing is going to be. To me phasing has been very annoying in past games. It's a break in the immersion that you have to deal with in group, or it makes things difficult for group. I know you can just make someone party leader and all phase to thier story, but that changes your story and to me that is a greater break in immersion, than zones and instances.
Don't know if some one said this already.... But if you guys recall from an earlier post from people who were testing the game or what ever i believe they were on site and.... They said they were told that when you complete one part of a game say you saved that village from burning and now your friend is doing that quest or a quest that follows up from not saving it you would just play your friend's version of story while partying with him or while doing "his story quests". I believe something like that was said. So your world would be unaffected and people can still group up playing together even though they made different decisions which changes there world a bit. But you will still be able to play with others that made that decisions to save the burning village or not save it.
i kinda hate phasing. but, it would be nice to actually see my choices impact the game world. if i put out the fire in the burning village only to walk by an hour later and see it still on fire sounds worse to me than seeing the village being re-built. depending on how they implement the phasing it will be a nice change imo. sure it may break immersion for grouping but if they limit it and do it right it sounds like it could be cool.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Please mmo devs of the world.
Make a new mmo with zero bloody instancing. These games were the best - daoc, eve etc.. I'm sure pveers feel the same about EQ or whatever too.
There are at least a few indie games in development with exactly the things you and I want.. I'm investing in each of them in the hopes that at least one of them makes it..
Again Vanguard has no instancing, everything is open, if i'm in the dungeon then i will be in there the same time as anyone else who enters the dungeon just like EQ was. On top of that you don't zone into the dungeon like you did in EQ, you walk straight into the dungeon.
Originally posted by Jmvx1989 Don't know if some one said this already.... But if you guys recall from an earlier post from people who were testing the game or what ever i believe they were on site and.... They said they were told that when you complete one part of a game say you saved that village from burning and now your friend is doing that quest or a quest that follows up from not saving it you would just play your friend's version of story while partying with him or while doing "his story quests". I believe something like that was said. So your world would be unaffected and people can still group up playing together even though they made different decisions which changes there world a bit. But you will still be able to play with others that made that decisions to save the burning village or not save it.
My question/concern is how will that impact interaction with other players? Will people who made the same decisions be group together when grouping players in a shard/zone/phase/whatever? GW2 claimed to have changes in your home instance which I saw only a minor change in the decision of going to the orphanage or the hospital. Charr story never say any impact from decisions on the home instance.
But that is a problem for them. Gamers have been showing, with their wallets, that they aren't too interested in these sorts of non-worldly games anymore.
Edit: Replying to Purewitz a couple of posts up.
guild wars 2 sold 2 million? or so copies. how many gamers showed the industry with their wallets?
Yeah, well, SWTOR sold a lot more than they did. The fact that people buy initially only shows how many are looking for something to play. Retention is what shows if a game is really successful or not. Retention with a cost, because it's easy to give something away.
But that is a problem for them. Gamers have been showing, with their wallets, that they aren't too interested in these sorts of non-worldly games anymore.
Edit: Replying to Purewitz a couple of posts up.
guild wars 2 sold 2 million? or so copies. how many gamers showed the industry with their wallets?
Yeah, well, SWTOR sold a lot more than they did. The fact that people buy initially only shows how many are looking for something to play. Retention is what shows if a game is really successful or not. Retention with a cost, because it's easy to give something away.
maybe so. but i think swtor had a few more problems than just instancing and phasing.
Megaservers? I just ask myself, how will this work out with their RvR. You will get randomly tossed in a random group fighting for X? Where is the connection to your realm? It is sooooo random.
MMORPGS meant to be persistent.. and now not even the players are persistent anymore. They should really remove the Massive part from it, because it isnt much different than BF, with the exception, that there i can at least decide in which map(server) i want to play.
Ok.. they will solve server merging with it, and they will solve population balances with it.. but it looks like they dont have a clue how huge the price it for that.
Also how does the mega server pan out with cross factioning.
Wish they took the daoc model more, launch with 3 core servers that are faction locked, a mordred style ffa server and a coop server. The latter 2 would let people go where they want which is one of the biggest complaints from tes single player fans.
But that is a problem for them. Gamers have been showing, with their wallets, that they aren't too interested in these sorts of non-worldly games anymore.
Edit: Replying to Purewitz a couple of posts up.
guild wars 2 sold 2 million? or so copies. how many gamers showed the industry with their wallets?
Yeah, well, SWTOR sold a lot more than they did. The fact that people buy initially only shows how many are looking for something to play. Retention is what shows if a game is really successful or not. Retention with a cost, because it's easy to give something away.
maybe so. but i think swtor had a few more problems than just instancing and phasing.
That's the "company line" by hardcore Themepark gamers on every game over years now.
Yeah the amount of instancing rammed in your face by swtor was definetly a negative, its what made it feel like a sprpg, and no one is going to pay a sub for a sprpg.
I suspect part of the reason they are doing this is as a result of supporting more "actiony" and faced paced combat and the effect that latency and lag have upon it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big of the approach myself. However there are only so many ways you can address such issues technicaly. It's nice to call all those things that go one behind the scenes technicaly to make MMO's work, "magic".....but I think that belies a big point.... you can't just wave your hand and make anything you want happen. There are things where you run into hard limitations....sometimes beyond your control.
Fast paced, action combat style games are really sensitive to network latency issues (not to mention server & client lag) which are completely beyond your ability to control......and having a "single server" solution without any instancing which supports users geographicaly disperssed on networks from Australia to Chicago means someone is going to end up losing out bad in terms of responsiveness.
from what i understand all you need to do is group up with them and just find them as long as their in your group their should be away to play with them. even if their a bit far behind in content.
I really think this could work. Yes, there are issues that have to be worked around but I think that those are being addressed. I want to respond to a couple issues brought up in these comments though. The first one is the question of phasing. Phasing will have nothing to do with the server configuation. Whether a game runs on multiple servers, in which a player chooses a server, or a megaserver, phasing is still the same, and the constraints are the same. Will they be able to make phasing more "group friendly" then games like WOW will remain to be seen. It annoying to be in a group and all of a sudden half of the group cannot see nor interact with the other half, but it is cool to have that dynamic world, so I think some concession must be made. Which do you prefer, a game where group play is always smooth or a dynamic world of change, geared to your specific character. I think that is a choice a player needs to make for themselves.
The other issue that was brought up by Apraxis, in his/her post, about RvR on a megaserver and the players losing that realm connection. I don't see that as a problem, what I see is the difference in how Apraxis is viewing the "realm". I think that Zenimax is looking at a realm being defined by your chosen pact. I think the confusion comes into play when you are looking at games like WOW, where realms are actually just names of different servers. In WOW, RvR would be basically server v. server, where in TESO, RvR is pact v. pact. And ofcourse, when the megaserver decides to place you on "server a" for this gaming session, it is obviously not going to group you with players from a different pact.
Personally, I think that the megaserver will cut down on the issues that exist on WOW right now in the cross-realm pugging. It is true that with pugging cross-realm, you get some real jerks because they figure, what are the odds I will ever see this player again. In the new TESO system, those odds are greatly increased, which means I think (or rather hope) that those situations will be reduced.
Comments
fyi :
ZeniMax Media Inc. is an American media company that develops and publishes video games through its subsidiaries. ZeniMax is known as the owner of id Software (developer of Doom and Quake), Bethesda Game Studios (developer of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3), Arkane Studios (developer of Arx Fatalis, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, and Dishonored) Tango Gameworks,[3] MachineGames[4] and ZeniMax Online Studios. ZeniMax is currently headquartered in Maryland, with offices in North America, Europe, and Asia.[5]
Gnomon Workshop Nov 2016, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop April 2014, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop February 2013, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop December 2012, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Could be I was wrong there regarding the particulars of their corporate structure.
However, my point still stands. The team that made Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim is NOT the team that is making ES Online. I'm sorry, even the title "ES Online" reeks of a half-hearted cash grab at the juicy mmo market. I've made it a point of avoiding all mmos named "xxx Online" made in the past 10 years.
(Am I the only one who finds the very word "Online" cheesy in the second decade of 21st century? It's like saying something is "atomic" from 1960s onward or "computer" since 1993 or so...)
actually they are both working on it http://tamrielfoundry.com/development-faq/
enimax Media is the parent company which owns both Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda Game Studios. The two sibling studios have a close working relationship which has allowed ZOS to collaborate effectively with Bethesda in order to maintain internal consistency in lore, geography, and art design. Todd Howard is personally involved to sign off on major decisions regarding the direction of the IP. (GI1),(GI2)
addtionally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Howard
Gnomon Workshop Nov 2016, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop April 2014, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop February 2013, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop December 2012, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
As far as the concept of the Megaserver goes regarding multiple and instanced zones, I'm all for it.
My experience in TES has always been accompanied by the feeling of 'you against the world'. This would be completely ruined if I were to play in a zone with 100 other people in it. Quest hubs being filled to capacity, strangely morphed-faced characters running around tea-bagging eachother. That ruins immersion for me, I hate that.
I would love having the option, if I could, to play in a zone with less people in it(Maybe the 'Lone Wolf' option they spoke about). I don't mind running into people every now and then, I just don't want every area being crowded with them. So if it works like this, I'm definitely in favor of the Megaserver.
As far as the rest of the game goes, it does indeed sound mildly promising. I've always wanted an option to play TES with my friends, even since the time of Morrowind and later Oblivion. Having said that, I've always been afraid of how MP/MMO could potentially drag the IP down in a pile of dirt. It sounds however like they are somewhat on the right track.
Tweet at me - Visit my website
Make a new mmo with zero bloody instancing. These games were the best - daoc, eve etc.. I'm sure pveers feel the same about EQ or whatever too.
There are at least a few indie games in development with exactly the things you and I want.. I'm investing in each of them in the hopes that at least one of them makes it..
"You are all going to poop yourselves." BillMurphy
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
Vanguard has no instancing all dungeons are open dungeons.
Again Vanguard has no instancing, everything is open, if i'm in the dungeon then i will be in there the same time as anyone else who enters the dungeon just like EQ was. On top of that you don't zone into the dungeon like you did in EQ, you walk straight into the dungeon.
My question/concern is how will that impact interaction with other players? Will people who made the same decisions be group together when grouping players in a shard/zone/phase/whatever? GW2 claimed to have changes in your home instance which I saw only a minor change in the decision of going to the orphanage or the hospital. Charr story never say any impact from decisions on the home instance.
Yeah, well, SWTOR sold a lot more than they did. The fact that people buy initially only shows how many are looking for something to play. Retention is what shows if a game is really successful or not. Retention with a cost, because it's easy to give something away.
Once upon a time....
maybe so. but i think swtor had a few more problems than just instancing and phasing.
Megaservers? I just ask myself, how will this work out with their RvR. You will get randomly tossed in a random group fighting for X? Where is the connection to your realm? It is sooooo random.
MMORPGS meant to be persistent.. and now not even the players are persistent anymore. They should really remove the Massive part from it, because it isnt much different than BF, with the exception, that there i can at least decide in which map(server) i want to play.
Ok.. they will solve server merging with it, and they will solve population balances with it.. but it looks like they dont have a clue how huge the price it for that.
Wish they took the daoc model more, launch with 3 core servers that are faction locked, a mordred style ffa server and a coop server. The latter 2 would let people go where they want which is one of the biggest complaints from tes single player fans.
That's the "company line" by hardcore Themepark gamers on every game over years now.
Once upon a time....
I suspect part of the reason they are doing this is as a result of supporting more "actiony" and faced paced combat and the effect that latency and lag have upon it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big of the approach myself. However there are only so many ways you can address such issues technicaly. It's nice to call all those things that go one behind the scenes technicaly to make MMO's work, "magic".....but I think that belies a big point.... you can't just wave your hand and make anything you want happen. There are things where you run into hard limitations....sometimes beyond your control.
Fast paced, action combat style games are really sensitive to network latency issues (not to mention server & client lag) which are completely beyond your ability to control......and having a "single server" solution without any instancing which supports users geographicaly disperssed on networks from Australia to Chicago means someone is going to end up losing out bad in terms of responsiveness.
I really think this could work. Yes, there are issues that have to be worked around but I think that those are being addressed. I want to respond to a couple issues brought up in these comments though. The first one is the question of phasing. Phasing will have nothing to do with the server configuation. Whether a game runs on multiple servers, in which a player chooses a server, or a megaserver, phasing is still the same, and the constraints are the same. Will they be able to make phasing more "group friendly" then games like WOW will remain to be seen. It annoying to be in a group and all of a sudden half of the group cannot see nor interact with the other half, but it is cool to have that dynamic world, so I think some concession must be made. Which do you prefer, a game where group play is always smooth or a dynamic world of change, geared to your specific character. I think that is a choice a player needs to make for themselves.
The other issue that was brought up by Apraxis, in his/her post, about RvR on a megaserver and the players losing that realm connection. I don't see that as a problem, what I see is the difference in how Apraxis is viewing the "realm". I think that Zenimax is looking at a realm being defined by your chosen pact. I think the confusion comes into play when you are looking at games like WOW, where realms are actually just names of different servers. In WOW, RvR would be basically server v. server, where in TESO, RvR is pact v. pact. And ofcourse, when the megaserver decides to place you on "server a" for this gaming session, it is obviously not going to group you with players from a different pact.
Personally, I think that the megaserver will cut down on the issues that exist on WOW right now in the cross-realm pugging. It is true that with pugging cross-realm, you get some real jerks because they figure, what are the odds I will ever see this player again. In the new TESO system, those odds are greatly increased, which means I think (or rather hope) that those situations will be reduced.