i think every smart guy will refuse to belive what a developer says. its common sense for smart people to think differentiate and to look behind those words not just stand before them.
Ive said it once and will say it again. This game wont please alot of players. Its like that star wars mmo. Only for fanboys.
poll has jack shit to do with the question. anyway, yes this community will be looking to bring down the game. unless it flops somehow and is not very popular post launch, then a small rabble here will act like it's perfect and underrated while the general jackass portion of posters here allow it because they know it'll fizzle out and those guys won't be talking bout it for long(see: TSW).
Originally posted by aleos haha poll question doesn't even match the title question. wth
I think the poll question that OP makes is about what he/she wrote actually! Read the OP again! The very title of the thread may not be very accurate though, but read the text.
Originally posted by Maephisto Community Imperative #1: Under no circumstance will you ever accept a developer's vision for their game. We know better what makes a good game, such things can't be left to the whims of developers.
Heh.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Not even going to read your post. In regards to the title of your thread, no. Communities don't make games fail. Bad games make games fail. Bad developers make games fail. The people who play those games do not. World of Warcraft has been the biggest success in relation to MMO's, and it's community is among the worst of all time.
You might want to take your own advice to heart. I actually did read about the Interregnum and the only mention I found of Bretons and Nords being allies in the time period is the Battle of Sancre Tor in 852. TESO start in 2nd 583.
270 years seems long enough for the Covenant and Pact to fall appart to me. Especially with High Rock being composed of hundreds of petty kings all backstabbing each others and the Dunmer/Argonians hating each others guts.
So...
During a time where petty warlords were fighting each other...you think it is ok for a Breton lord to unite not just the ENTIRE kingdom of Highrock but to also get the Redguard on board, not just some but the ENTIRE kindgom and to also manage to persuade the ENTIRE Orc nation to join forces with him?
But silly me, quoting the ACTUAL lore is wrong because it happens 270 years after the start of this period and is actually mentioned rather then made up for convenience and isn't going against what the lore actually states.
You stick with thinking their design is fine though.
Yeah, my bad!
Snip from the link YOU posted...
During the entirety of Interregnum, petty warlords had attempted to seize control of Cyrodiil's capital and to reestablish the Empire. None of them lasted for long,[10] until, in the year 2E 852 the king of Falkreath, Cuhlecain, sought to proclaim himself "Emperor of All Cyrodiil". Two years later, with the help of his general Talos who reclaimed the Amulet of Kings, he took the Imperial City from the battlemages of the Eastern Heartland, but was assassinated shortly after. It is uncertain whether or not Cuhlcecain was ever crowned Emperor.[11] The Third Empire was certainly established when Talos took the name Tiber Septim and was crowned in his stead in 2E 854, signaling the end of the Interregnum,[2] although the rest of Tamriel did not submit to his rule until the conclusion of the Tiber Wars in 2E 896.[5]
1. I suggest you read the bio of King Emeric. There is nothing in there going against the petty warlords and kings lore. In fact, Emeric is one of them. He married a Redguard princess. It also explain why the Orcs joined the Covenant.
2. And what do you think the TESO RvR is going to lead to? The best player is going to be the Emperor, until he lose the captital to another player. Probably every freaking weeks. It's litterally: "petty warlords had attempted to seize control of Cyrodiil's capital and to reestablish the Empire. None of them lasted for long" .
Originally posted by DAS1337 Not even going to read your post. In regards to the title of your thread, no. Communities don't make games fail. Bad games make games fail. Bad developers make games fail. The people who play those games do not. World of Warcraft has been the biggest success in relation to MMO's, and it's community is among the worst of all time.
I'm not saying that WoW's community is good in anyway. But you say it is the worst community in the worst of all time??? How do you know?
Been playing EQ1 since 1999 , and still play it, played wow for 4 year's aswell i think the person that said it's not the community that makes it a bad game its the developers that make it a bad game, even though EQ was made by sony i still think it was by far the best game ever. And ofcourse i thought DaOc was a pretty good game up till Trials of Atlantis.
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz 6142MB RAM NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Antec Gaming Phenom Windows Vista Home Premium
Originally posted by Maephisto Community Imperative #1: Under no circumstance will you ever accept a developer's vision for their game. We know better what makes a good game, such things can't be left to the whims of developers.
I dunno, this was meant to be sarcasm I think but it some ways it's sorta true. Why not give MMO fans what they want in a game not what you think they want. I think this has been the undoing of many recent releases over the past few years.
Because MMORPG fans:
1) Can't all agree what they want in a MMORPG, so Dev's are left to try and guess what will draw the most subscribers.
2) Frequently don't know what is good for them or the design of a MMORPG.
Dev's may miss the mark, an quite likely the fans would not fair much better.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by XforsakerX Been playing EQ1 since 1999 , and still play it, played wow for 4 year's aswell i think the person that said it's not the community that makes it a bad game its the developers that make it a bad game, even though EQ was made by sony i still think it was by far the best game ever. And ofcourse i thought DaOc was a pretty good game up till Trials of Atlantis.
EQ1 was made by Verant Interactive then bought out by sony...
1. I suggest you read the bio of King Emeric. There is nothing in there going against the petty warlords and kings lore. In fact, Emeric is one of them. He married a Redguard princess. It also explain why the Orcs joined the Covenant.
2. And what do you think the TESO RvR is going to lead to? The best player is going to be the Emperor, until he lose the captital to another player. Probably every freaking weeks. It's litterally: "petty warlords had attempted to seize control of Cyrodiil's capital and to reestablish the Empire. None of them lasted for long" .
So I play a Breton.
I fight for King Emeric and our faction.
I fight well.
I become Emperor.
...
...
What does King Emeric do?
He is the faction leader right?
Did I just betray my faction to claim the crown?
But how can that be? I am a Breton and ALL Bretons are the same faction so I cannot have betrayed my King, the system doesn't allow it.
So what is King Emeric doing? Isn't he Emperor?
...
...
Where are the petty warlords?
Shouldn't the petty warlords be fighting each other?
We don't have petty warlords but 3 factions comprising 3 entire nations in each faction...not petty in my mind.
If there were petty warlords that would make perfect sense to have guild conflics as the main thrust of PvP combat rather then 3 way factions. The lore says petty, the game says 3 entire nations - Not too loose is it?
...
...
You keep supporting their design if you want. You blindly defend it while I show you the holes. You won't accept them, fine, but please keep replying because the more you reply the more others will be able to look at the game design and see the problems. So stay a hardcore defender, it really is helpful.
That question is not well formulated, in my view. I think the problem is the Developers pretending to cater to god-damn everyone, and that's the reason because we have a collection of comparmentalized shallow and bland mini-games that they package and commercialize as MMORPGs - the presence of the RPG acronym being in most of the cases purely anecdotal. Everybody must finish the game (¿¿???) and have all shit in the game no matter how much time they invest or how skilled they are, no-one must be disturbed in his/her tunneled experience, no-one must be bothered because of immersion or realism biased systems...
Back in the day, MMORPGs were commercialized as an exclusivity to a niche-public - EDIT (forgot this): of course, a sub made sense under this model! The RPG in the acronym wasn't anecdotal, not at all. What we have now is a load of crap run by the "Call-of-Duty" and "Don't offend anyone" casual approachs that's been tied together and commercialized and hyped as "The Next Big Thing".
I dunno, perhaps the answer should be sought in the Social Sciences, after all gaming communities reflect our society's values and ethos: That is an anxiety-ridden society whose members have the attention span of a gnat and are incapable of assuming personal responsabilities a/o mistakes and that demands to be instantly gratified, while feeling entitled to do so. In other words, a society that has been dumbed down to the must basic animal ethos: stimulus and response, with no middle processing at all - a perfect reflection of our current mmorpg gaming systems, as it is reflected in the "participation trophies" trend, or the credit expansion burst whose consequences we are suffering right now (I'm entitled to have a house even if I have not a dime to pay for it!!! Yeah, i'm generalizing but you get the picture...).
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
1. I suggest you read the bio of King Emeric. There is nothing in there going against the petty warlords and kings lore. In fact, Emeric is one of them. He married a Redguard princess. It also explain why the Orcs joined the Covenant.
2. And what do you think the TESO RvR is going to lead to? The best player is going to be the Emperor, until he lose the captital to another player. Probably every freaking weeks. It's litterally: "petty warlords had attempted to seize control of Cyrodiil's capital and to reestablish the Empire. None of them lasted for long" .
So I play a Breton.
I fight for King Emeric and our faction.
I fight well.
I become Emperor.
...
...
What does King Emeric do?
He is the faction leader right?
Did I just betray my faction to claim the crown?
But how can that be? I am a Breton and ALL Bretons are the same faction so I cannot have betrayed my King, the system doesn't allow it.
So what is King Emeric doing? Isn't he Emperor?
...
...
Where are the petty warlords?
Shouldn't the petty warlords be fighting each other?
We don't have petty warlords but 3 factions comprising 3 entire nations in each faction...not petty in my mind.
If there were petty warlords that would make perfect sense to have guild conflics as the main thrust of PvP combat rather then 3 way factions. The lore says petty, the game says 3 entire nations - Not too loose is it?
...
...
You keep supporting their design if you want. You blindly defend it while I show you the holes. You won't accept them, fine, but please keep replying because the more you reply the more others will be able to look at the game design and see the problems. So stay a hardcore defender, it really is helpful.
Guild leaders and players are the petty warlords. That time period is in the middle of Tamriel Dark Ages (as per the single player games lore). This mean most historical facts are unknown/forgotten hundreds of years later. We get to live them in TESO and record them. Looks like some of the petty warloards were actually supported by large geo-political factions. It doesn't change anything to what came before or after. It is simply additional infomation because we get to see that time period (as opposed to read about it in the Pocket Guide to the Empire which is propaganda for Septim Empire).
Finally, you won't be betraying Emeric. The official website sayd: "Whoever controls the Ruby Throne will crown an Emperor, and their alliance will rule all of Tamriel." The faction select an Emperor, which of course piss off the other faction, so you never end up ruling all of Tamriel...
Guild leaders and players are the petty warlords. That time period is in the middle of Tamriel Dark Ages (as per the single player games lore). This mean most historical facts are unknown/forgotten hundreds of years later. We get to live them in TESO and record them. Looks like some of the petty warloards were actually supported by large geo-political factions. It doesn't change anything to what came before or after. It is simply additional infomation because we get to see that time period (as opposed to read about it in the Pocket Guide to the Empire which is propaganda for Septim Empire).
Finally, you won't be betraying Emeric. The official website sayd: "Whoever controls the Ruby Throne will crown an Emperor, and their alliance will rule all of Tamriel." The faction select an Emperor, which of course piss off the other faction, so you never end up ruling all of Tamriel...
So what is the point of having faction leaders like Emeric if HE does not become Emperor and wear the crown? And if he does, then why all the talk about players becoming Emperor?
Why the hell would any leader of millions put their entire forces into a conflict to fight over the crown...and then let someone else put it on? It just doesn't work.
Either the lore you are quoting is wrong or the game design is worng, which is it as they can't both be right. When control of the Ruby Throne is taken is it a player or Emeric that gets crowned?
Oh and are we to believe that only 3 petty warloards fought the entire conflict for 300 years? Petty warlords are small bands not huge nations. At the very least the game has used lazy language to descibe the game and been pretty loose and relaxed in how accurately their game design reflects currently written lore. But at the end of the day the design is...
Guild leaders and players are the petty warlords. That time period is in the middle of Tamriel Dark Ages (as per the single player games lore). This mean most historical facts are unknown/forgotten hundreds of years later. We get to live them in TESO and record them. Looks like some of the petty warloards were actually supported by large geo-political factions. It doesn't change anything to what came before or after. It is simply additional infomation because we get to see that time period (as opposed to read about it in the Pocket Guide to the Empire which is propaganda for Septim Empire).
Finally, you won't be betraying Emeric. The official website sayd: "Whoever controls the Ruby Throne will crown an Emperor, and their alliance will rule all of Tamriel." The faction select an Emperor, which of course piss off the other faction, so you never end up ruling all of Tamriel...
So what is the point of having faction leaders like Emeric if HE does not become Emperor and wear the crown? And if he does, then why all the talk about players becoming Emperor?
Why the hell would any leader of millions put their entire forces into a conflict to fight over the crown...and then let someone else put it on? It just doesn't work.
Either the lore you are quoting is wrong or the game design is worng, which is it as they can't both be right. When control of the Ruby Throne is taken is it a player or Emeric that gets crowned?
Oh and are we to believe that only 3 petty warloards fought the entire conflict for 300 years? Petty warlords are small bands not huge nations. At the very least the game has used lazy language to descibe the game and been pretty loose and relaxed in how accurately their game design reflects currently written lore. But at the end of the day the design is...
Simply retarded.
Like he said in the post you quoted, guild leaders players are the "petty warlords".
Plus... research history... what exactly is a King without an army or what is the power of that king if the army is completely faithful and devoted to its General? Even today... any president always has to have the support of his army - if the army is not under the president, but instead under a particular general, you're sure that a coup d'etat will likely follow and that general will become president. So it can be seen as a turn of tables when you're faced with "upholding your honor and devotion to a king versus the possibility of turning the tables and become emperor"
Another way you can look at it, is that the man who takes over the ruby throne is nothing but a proxy of that faction's king - his puppet allowing the king to have control both over his own territory and over the imperial throne.
There is a lot to twist... I think its pretty good actually. Puppet governments come and go but the core of the nation is never put at risk. If you would put the King as the "Emperor", since the three factions are fighting for the same thing, he would most likely be killed in the next "invasion" leaving both the emperor and his faction thrones empty - that would be a bit worse I think. So yea, he puts a puppet as "emperor" having absolute control over him (quoting a movie) "until he dies or they find someone better" - both are short term "contract" hehe
Originally posted by Doogiehowser I really doubt people here have power to bring any MMO down if it was true WOW would be the biggest failure of gaming history. People come here to express opinions..positive and negative, out of these forums and in larger scheme of things, it means nothing.
This. This site is notorious for it's negativity and people who think they are somehow speaking for the masses, but in the grand scheme of things it means nothing. TESO will rise or fall based on its merits. Nothing more. TESO is getting a lot of attention because it's the next big MMO release.
I have come to have a love-hate relationship with MMORPG community.
I love their passion about MMO's.
I hate their ego-centric ideals.
I love they want to talk about games... and hate when they think their opinions matter to the developers.
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I would never enjoy playing a game designed by the rabid critic wannabes who rage here. Thank god it's people who earn a living designing games who are devloping TESO.
And talk about misleading titles! I think from now on I'll call every thread I make "Unicorns having sex!" And then pitch whichever biased idea I'm selling today.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It's ridiculous to suggest that a community would be responsible for the demise of a game. The ultimate responsibility lies with the developers in charge. It's their job to have a plan. It's their job to adapt to the customers' wants and needs. It's their job to market their product to a specific audience and not everyone (which is impossible).
Comments
DaoC fanboys or...?
It takes one to know one.
I think the poll question that OP makes is about what he/she wrote actually! Read the OP again! The very title of the thread may not be very accurate though, but read the text.
I voted yes.
Heh.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
1. I suggest you read the bio of King Emeric. There is nothing in there going against the petty warlords and kings lore. In fact, Emeric is one of them. He married a Redguard princess. It also explain why the Orcs joined the Covenant.
2. And what do you think the TESO RvR is going to lead to? The best player is going to be the Emperor, until he lose the captital to another player. Probably every freaking weeks. It's litterally: "petty warlords had attempted to seize control of Cyrodiil's capital and to reestablish the Empire. None of them lasted for long" .
I'm not saying that WoW's community is good in anyway. But you say it is the worst community in the worst of all time??? How do you know?
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
6142MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Antec Gaming Phenom
Windows Vista Home Premium
Because MMORPG fans:
1) Can't all agree what they want in a MMORPG, so Dev's are left to try and guess what will draw the most subscribers.
2) Frequently don't know what is good for them or the design of a MMORPG.
Dev's may miss the mark, an quite likely the fans would not fair much better.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
EQ1 was made by Verant Interactive then bought out by sony...
So I play a Breton.
I fight for King Emeric and our faction.
I fight well.
I become Emperor.
...
...
What does King Emeric do?
He is the faction leader right?
Did I just betray my faction to claim the crown?
But how can that be? I am a Breton and ALL Bretons are the same faction so I cannot have betrayed my King, the system doesn't allow it.
So what is King Emeric doing? Isn't he Emperor?
...
...
Where are the petty warlords?
Shouldn't the petty warlords be fighting each other?
We don't have petty warlords but 3 factions comprising 3 entire nations in each faction...not petty in my mind.
If there were petty warlords that would make perfect sense to have guild conflics as the main thrust of PvP combat rather then 3 way factions. The lore says petty, the game says 3 entire nations - Not too loose is it?
...
...
You keep supporting their design if you want. You blindly defend it while I show you the holes. You won't accept them, fine, but please keep replying because the more you reply the more others will be able to look at the game design and see the problems. So stay a hardcore defender, it really is helpful.
In relation with the OP's title:
That question is not well formulated, in my view. I think the problem is the Developers pretending to cater to god-damn everyone, and that's the reason because we have a collection of comparmentalized shallow and bland mini-games that they package and commercialize as MMORPGs - the presence of the RPG acronym being in most of the cases purely anecdotal. Everybody must finish the game (¿¿???) and have all shit in the game no matter how much time they invest or how skilled they are, no-one must be disturbed in his/her tunneled experience, no-one must be bothered because of immersion or realism biased systems...
Back in the day, MMORPGs were commercialized as an exclusivity to a niche-public - EDIT (forgot this): of course, a sub made sense under this model! The RPG in the acronym wasn't anecdotal, not at all. What we have now is a load of crap run by the "Call-of-Duty" and "Don't offend anyone" casual approachs that's been tied together and commercialized and hyped as "The Next Big Thing".
I dunno, perhaps the answer should be sought in the Social Sciences, after all gaming communities reflect our society's values and ethos: That is an anxiety-ridden society whose members have the attention span of a gnat and are incapable of assuming personal responsabilities a/o mistakes and that demands to be instantly gratified, while feeling entitled to do so. In other words, a society that has been dumbed down to the must basic animal ethos: stimulus and response, with no middle processing at all - a perfect reflection of our current mmorpg gaming systems, as it is reflected in the "participation trophies" trend, or the credit expansion burst whose consequences we are suffering right now (I'm entitled to have a house even if I have not a dime to pay for it!!! Yeah, i'm generalizing but you get the picture...).
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
If that was true than it might actually be worth playing.
Limited areas are fine you nut jobs.
The doom and gloom MMO community won't have an affect on this game as they haven't before. Either it's a good game or it isn't.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Guild leaders and players are the petty warlords. That time period is in the middle of Tamriel Dark Ages (as per the single player games lore). This mean most historical facts are unknown/forgotten hundreds of years later. We get to live them in TESO and record them. Looks like some of the petty warloards were actually supported by large geo-political factions. It doesn't change anything to what came before or after. It is simply additional infomation because we get to see that time period (as opposed to read about it in the Pocket Guide to the Empire which is propaganda for Septim Empire).
Finally, you won't be betraying Emeric. The official website sayd: "Whoever controls the Ruby Throne will crown an Emperor, and their alliance will rule all of Tamriel." The faction select an Emperor, which of course piss off the other faction, so you never end up ruling all of Tamriel...
I have come to have a love-hate relationship with MMORPG community.
I love their passion about MMO's.
I hate their ego-centric ideals.
I love they want to talk about games... and hate when they think their opinions matter to the developers.
So what is the point of having faction leaders like Emeric if HE does not become Emperor and wear the crown? And if he does, then why all the talk about players becoming Emperor?
Why the hell would any leader of millions put their entire forces into a conflict to fight over the crown...and then let someone else put it on? It just doesn't work.
Either the lore you are quoting is wrong or the game design is worng, which is it as they can't both be right. When control of the Ruby Throne is taken is it a player or Emeric that gets crowned?
Oh and are we to believe that only 3 petty warloards fought the entire conflict for 300 years? Petty warlords are small bands not huge nations. At the very least the game has used lazy language to descibe the game and been pretty loose and relaxed in how accurately their game design reflects currently written lore. But at the end of the day the design is...
Simply retarded.
Like he said in the post you quoted, guild leaders players are the "petty warlords".
Plus... research history... what exactly is a King without an army or what is the power of that king if the army is completely faithful and devoted to its General? Even today... any president always has to have the support of his army - if the army is not under the president, but instead under a particular general, you're sure that a coup d'etat will likely follow and that general will become president. So it can be seen as a turn of tables when you're faced with "upholding your honor and devotion to a king versus the possibility of turning the tables and become emperor"
Another way you can look at it, is that the man who takes over the ruby throne is nothing but a proxy of that faction's king - his puppet allowing the king to have control both over his own territory and over the imperial throne.
There is a lot to twist... I think its pretty good actually. Puppet governments come and go but the core of the nation is never put at risk. If you would put the King as the "Emperor", since the three factions are fighting for the same thing, he would most likely be killed in the next "invasion" leaving both the emperor and his faction thrones empty - that would be a bit worse I think. So yea, he puts a puppet as "emperor" having absolute control over him (quoting a movie) "until he dies or they find someone better" - both are short term "contract" hehe
This. This site is notorious for it's negativity and people who think they are somehow speaking for the masses, but in the grand scheme of things it means nothing. TESO will rise or fall based on its merits. Nothing more. TESO is getting a lot of attention because it's the next big MMO release.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I would never enjoy playing a game designed by the rabid critic wannabes who rage here. Thank god it's people who earn a living designing games who are devloping TESO.
And talk about misleading titles! I think from now on I'll call every thread I make "Unicorns having sex!" And then pitch whichever biased idea I'm selling today.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED