Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Hating the Haters

16781012

Comments

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by Yaevindusk

    ...The MMO genre has very much been "bastardized" in a matter of speaking; those who started in the 90s or early 00's typically loved MMOs for what they were...  

    Agreed. There is a huge gap in mindset between the people who played mmorpgs before WoW, versus those that started after. WoW signalled a massive shift in mmorpgs; games became much less hardcore when levelling and far more accessible to casual players. That was a good thing in many ways, but a bad thing in others. People talk about wanting the good ole pre-Wow days, but at the same time I think their memory is biased somewhat: they remember the good things more than the bad.

    MMORPG.com has a lot more of the old school players, so you are going to get a different perspective here than from the mmorpg player base as a whole. The problem is, making a game that appeals mainly to old school players probably wont be financially successful, especially for a game like Elder Scrolls which has a huge player base, most of whom are not hardcore PvPers. There is no way that ESO will put years of development and  tens of millions of dollars into a game with limited mainstream appeal. That may be what the old school players want, but its not a viable business model for a game with widespread appeal like Elder Scrolls.

    Plus, when you listen to the old school players talk about what made the games they liked great, they often dont agree. They have many different wants and perspectives. It wouldnt be possible to design a game for them because there is no one game that would satisfy most of them. They will complain about what the game companies do, not accepting the fact that investors arent going to fork over $100M to design a game to appeal to 100k people. A smaller indie company might spend less and target that nicke market, but not a game based on Elder Scrolls. I am sure they are aiming for 1M+, and you wont get there by designing a game for hardcore PvPers. First and foremost they need to satisfy a large chunk of the ES/Skyrim player base, and make sure that the game is appealing to a wide variety of players. They say max level can be reached in 120 hours and that is obviously aimed at casual and semi-casual players.

    By the way, I am an old school gamer, but have spent decades in the business world, I dont let my gaming desires blind me to the financial reality these companies are facing. Like it or not, WoW has revolutionized the industry and greatly upped the curve in terms of $ and polish required to publish a game, and massively changed the playerbase. Any game aimed at mainstream players would be foolish to ignore that.

    I started playing MMO's with Asheron's Call in November of 1999 when it released, was selected for the beta the same summer and I've been playing AC off and on now for 14+ years.  It still remains my favorite MMO of all time but that doesn't mean some of the systems it uses are outdated and would be better off if it offered some more common themepark elements like:

    • Auction Houses
    • Group Finder
    • Limited bag space inventory system instead of Encumberance system
    • removal of 20 min buffing sessions
    • plus other things
     

    Ofcourse but AC, even though it is my favourite MMO of all times, is over a decade old. Turbine should have evolved it but instead went ThemePark with AC 2 and LotrO and there hasn't been a single triple A sandbox since and that is the main issue here. Devs with money and resources, not spending it on evolving the sandbox concept but rather throwing out ThemePark after ThemePark, hoping to get a piece of the 10 million sub pie of WoW.

    ESO would have been an excellent candidate for a triple A sandbox MMO because everything about Skyrim screams sandbox but noooo, here comes yet another ThemePark... getting fed up with this shit.

    you wont get a tripple A sandbox mmo, because only TWO sandboxes have been a success EVE and UO.  AC & SWG i consider more as hybrid games, like Tes itself.  Infact when I thought of what a tes mmo would be like, i thought of AC not UO.  If they are making it heavily based on DAOC though, i dont think thats a bad thing, DAOC is way closer to tes than say wow.  What i fear is they might have quite a few wow like features in there too, although they seem to be distancing themselves from wow lately with descisions like dropping instanced pvp minigames.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Originally posted by sapphen

    I'm not saying they couldn't have RvR, I'm just saying they should've wrote the setting as 3 different groups; lead by the Breton Merchant Lord, the Nord High King and the High Elf Queen - fighting instead of everyone uniting under a nice and neat 3 race, 3 faction system.  Make people join one of these factions in order to PvP.

    yeah like the houses in morrowind.  I said a simmilar thing in another thread.  I guess the problem is modern players and following the path of least resistance they fear they will all pile on one faction.  But they could say have 3 imperial houses you join, but you make that descision at character creation.

    The more obvious soloution though is to copy daocs core/ffa/coop server setup.

    Core servers played likethey are saying.  Separate pve area for each faction, shared faction pvp area.

    FFA servers, almost entire world was PVP flagged and guilds could claim keeps in the rvr area, you could visit the entire world.  (think darkfall without player loot)

    Coop servers you could travel the entire world and make guilds and groups with members of the other factions.

    I would compromise with a faction choice at character creation. I know it's impossible to rework the game at this point but fear of faction imbalance shouldn't have been problem.  IMO there are a few ways to balance this instead of taking the path of least resistance.

    I would support different server choices.  Maybe not 3 but 2.  A core and then an "Real Elder Scrolls" one (lol) - faction choice at character creation, go anywhere, can manually flag for wPvP versus faction or wPvP versus everyone.

    I appreciate you responding from a problem solving perspective, it gives me some hope in this thread of dispair.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Originally posted by sapphen

    I'm not saying they couldn't have RvR, I'm just saying they should've wrote the setting as 3 different groups; lead by the Breton Merchant Lord, the Nord High King and the High Elf Queen - fighting instead of everyone uniting under a nice and neat 3 race, 3 faction system.  Make people join one of these factions in order to PvP.

    yeah like the houses in morrowind.  I said a simmilar thing in another thread.  I guess the problem is modern players and following the path of least resistance they fear they will all pile on one faction.  But they could say have 3 imperial houses you join, but you make that descision at character creation.

    The more obvious soloution though is to copy daocs core/ffa/coop server setup.

    Core servers played likethey are saying.  Separate pve area for each faction, shared faction pvp area.

    FFA servers, almost entire world was PVP flagged and guilds could claim keeps in the rvr area, you could visit the entire world.  (think darkfall without player loot)

    Coop servers you could travel the entire world and make guilds and groups with members of the other factions.

    I would compromise with a faction choice at character creation. I know it's impossible to rework the game at this point but fear of faction imbalance shouldn't have been problem.  IMO there are a few ways to balance this instead of taking the path of least resistance.

    I would support different server choices.  Maybe not 3 but 2.  A core and then an "Real Elder Scrolls" one (lol) - faction choice at character creation, go anywhere, can manually flag for wPvP versus faction or wPvP versus everyone.

    I appreciate you responding from a problem solving perspective, it gives me some hope in this thread of dispair.

    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by Distopia

    A question that can't be answered at present.

    IF these things bother you so much, you don't have to play.

    You're not going to see me standing in line for a copy. I refuse to sign up for beta as well.

     

     

     

    For someone with no intention of playing you sure do display emotions to the contrary.

    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!!!

    image

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by sapphen

    I'm not saying they couldn't have RvR, I'm just saying they should've wrote the setting as 3 different groups; lead by the Breton Merchant Lord, the Nord High King and the High Elf Queen - fighting instead of everyone uniting under a nice and neat 3 race, 3 faction system.  Make people join one of these factions in order to PvP.

    And you wouldn't have the systems in place that promote community and faction pride.  Arguably the biggest reasons why GW2 WvW is the failure it is.  I want the feeling like I had in DAoC of fighting that Elf invader or Troll Invader as opposed to invader....when the nemey is different looking and comes from different lands its more immersive and offers greater pride for defending your realm.

    GW2 isn't a failure just because you didn't like it.  That has got to be a joke, you do realize that it's the 2nd most played MMO out at the moment right?  They have some work to do on their WvW systems, allowing free server transfers hurt the faction pride the most.  Races had NOTHING to do with that.

    Even if it did and they want to promote faction pride then why are they forcing us to create multiple alts inorder to see the entire world?

  • deakondeakon birminghamPosts: 583Member
    Originally posted by sapphen

    Still doesn't change the fact that they faction locked races and areas to be like DAoC.  Am I supposed to be grateful that they might've gotten a few things right?  The above is all fine and good but TES is about freedom to choose your factions and explore the land.

    Many of these have been done in MMOs already, what good are these systems if they didn't represent the core of TES.

    You still are free to chose faction, you just do it at creation due to the races being at war with each other

    You can explore more areas (fully realised) than in any other tes game ever, even with the faction lock so how is being able to explore more than before, removing the "core of TES"? Or is it the fact that races are being locked to factions? because I would say race choice is a fairly small part of what makes tes tes, and certainly not THE "core"

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Gw2 lacks rivalry, no factions is a part of that, but so Is no names and server hopping.

    It's why I'm playing ps2 instead.
  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by sapphen

    I'm not saying they couldn't have RvR, I'm just saying they should've wrote the setting as 3 different groups; lead by the Breton Merchant Lord, the Nord High King and the High Elf Queen - fighting instead of everyone uniting under a nice and neat 3 race, 3 faction system.  Make people join one of these factions in order to PvP.

    And you wouldn't have the systems in place that promote community and faction pride.  Arguably the biggest reasons why GW2 WvW is the failure it is.  I want the feeling like I had in DAoC of fighting that Elf invader or Troll Invader as opposed to invader....when the nemey is different looking and comes from different lands its more immersive and offers greater pride for defending your realm.

    GW2 isn't a failure just because you didn't like it.  That has got to be a joke, you do realize that it's the 2nd most played MMO out at the moment right?  They have some work to do on their WvW systems, allowing free server transfers hurt the faction pride the most.  Races had NOTHING to do with that.

    Even if it did and they want to promote faction pride then why are they forcing us to create multiple alts inorder to see the entire world?

    Never said GW2 is a failure, I said WvW is a failure because it strayed to far from what made DAoC's RvR what it is.  I agree with GW2, its a great game even though I aint playing it currently but if the WvW was a tenth of what DAoC's was I would be still there.

    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!!!

    image

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by azzamasin.

    Not saying they are invalid but I am saying their concerns are un warranted since we get more PvE space then any of the single player RPG's.  I cant explore Hammerfell while I am playing Skyrim and everyone is fine with that but ohhh all hell breaks out if you cant explore Hammerfell while in the MMO.  It makes no sense to me.

    Call me an optomist but if I was a PvE'er only and I chose to play ESO and say I pick Ebonheart Pact I now get access to Skyrim, Morrownd and Blackmarsh....way more exploration space compared to the single player game. 

    Yeah but in the single player games the land is not there!  Here they have it and they won't let us explore it - there is a huge difference.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    For someone with no intention of playing you sure do display emotions to the contrary.

    If they make a 2 (or 3) server option that allows to me pick my faction and explore the world on one character, I would play the game.  If they stay on the same track, I have no intention of playing.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    Never said GW2 is a failure, I said WvW is a failure because it strayed to far from what made DAoC's RvR what it is.  I agree with GW2, its a great game even though I aint playing it currently but if the WvW was a tenth of what DAoC's was I would be still there.

    Okay thank you for the clairifcation, sorry I got snippy.

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Winchester, MAPosts: 937Member

    I enjoyed the entire Warcraft RTS line, and I don't remember anything resembling this level of concern of lore botching and different game mechanics when WoW was announced. Maybe the comparison isn't good, but I thought it bore mentioning.

    I realize Warcraft wasn't a SRPG, but still, the MMORPG came out pretty decent. (OK that's opinion. It came out succesful at any rate.)

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    And Warcraft started off as a Real-Time-Strategy game and transitioned into an MMO.  One that is arguably the most successful ever. 

     

    So what if ESO is transitioning from a single player open world RPG to a Open World MMO with 3 player factional warfare that fits within the lore of the setting.  I can buy ESO's transition far more easily then I could of Warcrafts.

     And KOTOR was a successful SRPG IP made into MMO SWOTR which failed bigtime because? Oh yeah. Taking one example, which is not the same, to try to make your argument work can easiliy be turned against you with actual examples that FIT.

    Much like the LAUGHABLE comment highlighted above.

    OPEN WORLD MEANS THE WORLD IS OPEN, no loading zones. It is NOT OPEN WORLD. They can call it whatever they want, it doesnt change the definition at all...just like their calling instances, campaigns...doesnt mean it is NOT instanced.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Winchester, MAPosts: 937Member
    Geez, calm down. I was just throwing it out there. I wasn't trying to definitively proove that the earth was actually flat.
  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by sapphen

    GW2 isn't a failure just because you didn't like it.  That has got to be a joke, you do realize that it's the 2nd most played MMO out at the moment right?  They have some work to do on their WvW systems, allowing free server transfers hurt the faction pride the most.  Races had NOTHING to do with that.

    Even if it did and they want to promote faction pride then why are they forcing us to create multiple alts inorder to see the entire world?

    Never said GW2 is a failure, I said WvW is a failure because it strayed to far from what made DAoC's RvR what it is.  I agree with GW2, its a great game even though I aint playing it currently but if the WvW was a tenth of what DAoC's was I would be still there.

     So lets repeat what he said and change GW2 to WvW...just because you didnt like it, doesnt mean its a fail. WvW is filled with people playing it...just like if I said RvR was a fail in DaoC, you will disagree. Even at its peak, DaoC could not produce the amount of people taking place in heavy GW2 fights and not lag or server crash...which makes DaoC RvR a total fail in my eyes because the game made that the focus of the game...and looking at what we know about TESO, 2000 player max, 200 player max on screen...the devs havent learned a thing about programming. Not surprising seeing as how the game is nothing more than DaoC 2 with no new ideas being given. They are stuck in the past, with a game that wasnt all that great or popular.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by deakon
    Originally posted by sapphen

    Still doesn't change the fact that they faction locked races and areas to be like DAoC.  Am I supposed to be grateful that they might've gotten a few things right?  The above is all fine and good but TES is about freedom to choose your factions and explore the land.

    Many of these have been done in MMOs already, what good are these systems if they didn't represent the core of TES.

    You still are free to chose faction, you just do it at creation due to the races being at war with each other

    You can explore more areas (fully realised) than in any other tes game ever, even with the faction lock so how is being able to explore more than before, removing the "core of TES"? Or is it the fact that races are being locked to factions? because I would say race choice is a fairly small part of what makes tes tes, and certainly not THE "core"

    I am a Breton and I don't like Daggerfall, the Merchant Lord killed my parents yet I am FORCED to join him.  How is limiting races to factions giving players a choice?  You are reaching pretty hard.

    It's removing the core of TES because the land is there, why can't we explore it.  It's that simple man, like it or not.  Telling someone to be happy because it's more than what was previously released is like throwing a dog a bone after promising him a steak.  It's a MMO, of course it's gonna be bigger but it's just retarded to limit players in such a way when the landscape is there.

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,900Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by azzamasin.

    Not saying they are invalid but I am saying their concerns are un warranted since we get more PvE space then any of the single player RPG's.  I cant explore Hammerfell while I am playing Skyrim and everyone is fine with that but ohhh all hell breaks out if you cant explore Hammerfell while in the MMO.  It makes no sense to me.

    Call me an optomist but if I was a PvE'er only and I chose to play ESO and say I pick Ebonheart Pact I now get access to Skyrim, Morrownd and Blackmarsh....way more exploration space compared to the single player game. 

    Yeah but in the single player games the land is not there!  Here they have it and they won't let us explore it - there is a huge difference.

    That is actually something I liked about DAOC, as each Realm was unique. If ESO is as vast as they describe it as being, that could possibly be the equivalent of having many TES games in one, since morrowind the worlds have gotten smaller with little variety in evironment. This is a much better approach than SWTOR took as an example, for an MMO. Not that I don't understand your complaint, as I'd also prefer something different for factions. My personal preference would be something like SWG. Three factions yet one is non combative, unless they offer their services to one of two factions, with no racial ties to faction.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by azzamasin.

    Not saying they are invalid but I am saying their concerns are un warranted since we get more PvE space then any of the single player RPG's.  I cant explore Hammerfell while I am playing Skyrim and everyone is fine with that but ohhh all hell breaks out if you cant explore Hammerfell while in the MMO.  It makes no sense to me.

    Call me an optomist but if I was a PvE'er only and I chose to play ESO and say I pick Ebonheart Pact I now get access to Skyrim, Morrownd and Blackmarsh....way more exploration space compared to the single player game. 

    Yeah but in the single player games the land is not there!  Here they have it and they won't let us explore it - there is a huge difference.

    That is actually something I liked about DAOC, as each Realm was unique. If ESO is as vast as they describe it as being, that could possibly be the equivalent of having many TES games in one, since morrowind the worlds have gotten smaller with little variety in evironment. This is a much better approach than SWTOR took as an example, for an MMO. Not that I don't understand your complaint, as I'd also prefer something different for factions. My personal preference would be something like SWG. Three factions yet one is non combative, unless they offer their services to one of two factions, with no racial ties to faction.

    I can respect that.  Although it could be like 3 Elder Scrolls games in one, I would've rather had one huge Elder Scrolls game. 

    SWTOR would've worked great with 3 factions; Republic, Empire and Hutts. I had no problems with race restricted factions in that game because it made sense.  I'm having a terrible time trying to accept it in ESO.

  • Dantae87Dantae87 Camloops, ABPosts: 166Member
    How can u hate sumthing that dosnt exist yet? Im so confuzed at ppls view points on certain things....

    image

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    And Warcraft started off as a Real-Time-Strategy game and transitioned into an MMO.  One that is arguably the most successful ever. 

     

    So what if ESO is transitioning from a single player open world RPG to a Open World MMO with 3 player factional warfare that fits within the lore of the setting.  I can buy ESO's transition far more easily then I could of Warcrafts.

     And KOTOR was a successful SRPG IP made into MMO SWOTR which failed bigtime because? Oh yeah. Taking one example, which is not the same, to try to make your argument work can easiliy be turned against you with actual examples that FIT.

    Much like the LAUGHABLE comment highlighted above.

    OPEN WORLD MEANS THE WORLD IS OPEN, no loading zones. It is NOT OPEN WORLD. They can call it whatever they want, it doesnt change the definition at all...just like their calling instances, campaigns...doesnt mean it is NOT instanced.

    First off no game does seemless world any more, almost all triple-A MMO use some sort of zoning.

     

    Secondly your defintions are twisted, open world means go anywhere.  What you desscribed is commonly called seemless world.  Seemless and Zoned worlds can either be open ended or linear!!!

     

    Thirdly Instancing is when the game creates a new area for you and your party, meaning no one can join.  ESO features instances but the world is a zoned open ended as opposed to a seemless open ended which is what you want.

    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!!!

    image

  • deakondeakon birminghamPosts: 583Member
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by deakon
    Originally posted by sapphen

    Still doesn't change the fact that they faction locked races and areas to be like DAoC.  Am I supposed to be grateful that they might've gotten a few things right?  The above is all fine and good but TES is about freedom to choose your factions and explore the land.

    Many of these have been done in MMOs already, what good are these systems if they didn't represent the core of TES.

    You still are free to chose faction, you just do it at creation due to the races being at war with each other

    You can explore more areas (fully realised) than in any other tes game ever, even with the faction lock so how is being able to explore more than before, removing the "core of TES"? Or is it the fact that races are being locked to factions? because I would say race choice is a fairly small part of what makes tes tes, and certainly not THE "core"

    I am a Breton and I don't like Daggerfall, the Merchant Lord killed my parents yet I am FORCED to join him.  How is limiting races to factions giving players a choice?  You are reaching pretty hard.

    It's removing the core of TES because the land is there, why can't we explore it.  It's that simple man, like it or not.  Telling someone to be happy because it's more than what was previously released is like throwing a dog a bone after promising him a steak.  It's a MMO, of course it's gonna be bigger but it's just retarded to limit players in such a way when the landscape is there.

    Its the core because its there? What the...how... I meen ... honestly...speechless

    No its not the same because you were never promised the steak to begin with, its more like a starving child being given oats and them complaining because the children in the town down the road are getting just bread and he wants oats AND bread

    "this game is going to be bad because it offers more than the ip has offered before"......... ok

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Dantae87
    How can u hate sumthing that dosnt exist yet? Im so confuzed at ppls view points on certain things....

    People are not liking the fact that they faction locked races and areas.  The game exists, I don't see how you think it doesn't. 

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by deakon

    Its the core because its there? What the...how... I meen ... honestly...speechless

    Freedom to explore is the core.  Blocking off areas because they want to focus on a racial war is NOT freedom.  Have you even played an Elder Scrolls game?

  • deakondeakon birminghamPosts: 583Member
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by deakon

    Its the core because its there? What the...how... I meen ... honestly...speechless

    Freedom to explore is the core.  Blocking off areas because they want to focus on a racial war is NOT freedom.  Have you even played an Elder Scrolls game?

    Its not complete freedom no, its still more freedom than the ip has ever had before tho and its not like you cant see all the land it just gives a reason to roll an alt (much like the faction choices in previouse titles have)

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by deakon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by deakon

    Its the core because its there? What the...how... I meen ... honestly...speechless

    Freedom to explore is the core.  Blocking off areas because they want to focus on a racial war is NOT freedom.  Have you even played an Elder Scrolls game?

    Its not complete freedom no, its still more freedom than the ip has ever had before tho and its not like you cant see all the land it just gives a reason to roll an alt (much like the faction choices in previouse titles have)

    It is in NO WAY more freedom than the IP has ever had before.. again, have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?  In no other TES game have they prevented you from exploring content they've created.  It is crazy to limit players in this unneeded way.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Lol you got to be joking, you had much bigger fights in daoc.

    Not heard of the gw2 culling problem either?
This discussion has been closed.