Originally posted by fivoroth No MMO has enough content to lAst you 2-5years. The only way to play an mmo for this long is if like doing the same content over and over and over again.
I don't get where people get the whole notion that mmos can last for years. That's only if you are content of grinding like crazy and repeating the same content for infinity. It's all grinding for pointless stuff after you go through the real unique content.
You are completely wrong, and it's probably not your fault. Ultima Online lasted me five years, and it should have been longer. In fact, it's still running a sub today, and it's been 17 years. While it's mostly nostalgia, still, you can't really argue with it's success.
The game wasn't structured to feed you content. It was structured to provide you with the tools to create your own. It also provided you with just as much reward as there was consequence. Your actions meant something. You owned a piece of the world, which is lost on most people. Today, kids consider housing an extension of your bank vault, but it means so much more than that in regards to retention rate. There were little sub-economies in the game, such as selling mounts and houses for example. I think having multiple layers of economy is brutally important for the longevity of a game. Progression came fairly slowly, but not TOO slow to dissuade you from playing. There was a sense of fear when leaving town, but the 'over the top' view and lack of grouping functionality promoted small group PvP or solo PvP. You never got caught up in a zerg, and rarely in a situation where you were grossly outnumbered.
Don't get me wrong, that game had a ton of flaws that have been fixed over the years. But some of the most important things that that game did to bring you into the world and keep you there, are lost to today's MMO developers. Most of you can't understand, because you think that your game does it best. You haven't experienced it done right, and it's not your fault. Though, I've played many typed of MMO's, and I know which one does the best. There is a reason games in the past often stayed in their prime for years, while games today will be lucky to make it past three months.
It's not because us old timers are wrong. That much I know.
I think within a year or two it will have to change its business model when it does I hope it changes to buy to play as TSW did . Everything about TESO screams buy to play and I suspect if it had been released as such it would not have got such a hostile response to its release . There seems to be overwealming negativity towards it both in the gaming press and among gamers now its hard to see how it will pick up . Its a shame because it actually could be an OK game once they sort out the bugs and some of the design flaws in it .
Nothing about TESO "screams buy to play", that's only the sound of your own hopes...
In your version of the internet, everyone may be "overwhelmingly negative" about ESO, but in the majority of reviews I've seen the game is rated between 5 and 7, which is "average to good". It's not the second coming, but that doesn't mean a huge number of people aren't playing it and enjoying it.
But don't worry, there are scores of games currently in development that are going to be incredibly good. At least until they are released, anyway...
Originally posted by apocoluster Give it time. If SWTOR can grow into something , TESO can too
SWTOR has a different story line for each class with choices that actually make a difference in each story's development. ESO has one story with no choices, no replayability, and no real roleplayability. It's a bad stand alone game played out in a multi-player setting.
ESO doesn't really feel like an mmo, there is not much incentive to group and no world pvp outside Cyrodiil, you only group for dungeons and pvp groups. It is a good game but it seems like it is the type of game you beat and never touch again instead of an MMO that captures your attention for playing even after you complete end game content.
Lets say someone played this slowly and completed all the content and pve quests in cyodiil and achieved the top veteran rank. This would take about 1-3 months depending on how long you play each day. After you do this, you are not gonna wanna repeat it with a new class, not me anyway, I hate repeating quests in Elder Scrolls games. So now you can run dungeons and get some gear, they also have the adventure zones but those will get old quick, there isn't many but will be more with content updates and the eventual expansion.
Still, I like PVE in a MMO but what keeps me playing long term is PVP, the pvp in this is simply repetitive! It is fun at first but gets boring quickly, I didn't sub after playing the beta because of this. If you have played large scale pvp games before as I have, like planetside 2 then your standards will be very high. Planetside 2 has a lot of variety and almost every single battle feels new and different, it only feels repetitive if you are zerging the enemy and outnumber them a lot, but if you can find big battles where both sides are almost even or smaller battles like that then it doesn't feel repetitive at all and always feels new, every battle progresses different with the positions of the enemy and your team and coordination among the group if you are in an organized outfit or even just in the chat.
ESO pvp has no strategy a all, its just a zerg vs zerg fest. All you do is seige a keep, then rush it, that is it, it gets old quickly because the Terrain has almost no variety, it all looks similar, there are no vehicles or air vehicles (obviously not because its a fantasy mmo but still, it makes it have less variety). Simply put, ESO is not for anyone who likes PVP more than PVE in a MMO, there are no arenas, no battlegrounds, it isn't truly open world pvp since all pvp is limited to Cryodiil and it just becomes a zerg fest in the end.
If you want good pvp, play planetside 2 or wait for everquest next, warhammer 40,000 eternal crusade and Wildstar.
You didn't sub yet felt compelled to make this post why...?
Never mind, I see youre trying to not so subtly get people to play WS.
*cough* TROLL *cough*
Selective reading much?
He mentions 4 games... WS is one of them. Yet you come to the conclusion that his entire post was really all about getting people to play WS. This is even after he gives a lengthy description of what he didn't enjoy about ESO's PvP, and examples of how he feels it has been or can be done better.
But to you, he's just getting people to play WS... Wow. How much more dishonest can you be? And how would you pick WS? Because it's the one coming out the soonest? He talks about Planetside 2 the most throughout the post, but somehow a brief mention of it at the tail end of the post = "his post was all about getting people to play WS". Amazing.
Seriously, do you people think at all about what you post before posting it?
Originally posted by Nemesis7884 has nothing to do with trolling - its a simple fact that themepark mmos rely on constant new content being released - name one themepark where this has been different?
Sandbox MMOs aren't that popular or there would be more.
Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop and maintain, yet most all MMOs are still Themeparks.
Sandbox may be what you like, but it seems there are a LOT of people who prefer the other.
Originally posted by apocoluster Give it time. If SWTOR can grow into something , TESO can too
SWTOR has a different story line for each class with choices that actually make a difference in each story's development. ESO has one story with no choices, no replayability, and no real roleplayability. It's a bad stand alone game played out in a multi-player setting.
There are very FEW choices in SWTOR that matter.
Even in the low levels of ESO you have to make choices that affect your progression. Who lives/dies, etc.
I bought SWTOR, but let's face it...that game was BAD at launch. They DID make it better (except for their view of f2p is crap).
Anyway, saying SWTOR's choices actually mattered is a bit deceitful.
There are a lot of posts here complaining that it takes too long to finish all three quest lines, so the game clearly has "too much" content for a lot of people. (Yes, it's questing. Yes, the single player games had almost as many hours of questing, Really.) Now we're seeing the claim that there is too little to do.
It's just obnoxious to assert, in advance, that a new game will not generate any new content; that the PvP won't be refined, and so on. What I'll do is not to try and play crystal ball about whether a game will keep my interest for a decade - I can't imagine one that would. I'll play it as long as I enjoy it and I'll stop when I don't. There are a ton of things to do in this game, and by any reasonable metric you'd get plenty of value for your money if you like the sort of game that this is.
Originally posted by Nemesis7884 has nothing to do with trolling - its a simple fact that themepark mmos rely on constant new content being released - name one themepark where this has been different?
Sandbox MMOs aren't that popular or there would be more.
Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop and maintain, yet most all MMOs are still Themeparks.
Sandbox may be what you like, but it seems there are a LOT of people who prefer the other.
In three statements, you did not even attempt to respond to Nemesis's remarks. Did you click "quote" on the wrong post?
And by the by... Sandbox MMOs are actually more complicated to develop than themeparks. Themeparks are all about large amounts of static, guided content that players can churn through. However, it's always the same experience. Every character doing the same quests is getting the same experience from it.
Sandbox, on the other hand, is open. There are no rails. There is no guided content. The developers establish the setting (the world, lore, etc), they create the various game systems, create the content used for and by those systems, set the rules, and then let the players go. The worlds tend to be more dynamic and fluid, and the experience for one character will never be the same as that for another one... no matter how many alts one creates. The developers have to take all possible scenarios into account, and even be prepared to deal with some they didn't think of, because players will always find ways of combining systems that are unexpected. It's what is referred to as 'emergent gameplay'.
The more freedom a player is given in a game, the more complicated the game is to design on the back end.
I almost dont believe saying this but, after trying out the boring, repetetive PvP in Cyrodil, I think this games need instanced PvP arenas. I had much more fun in WAR instanced PvP arenas than I have close to in Cyrodil PvP which is all zerg with pointless of flipping keeps back and forth and no side actually seem to score a true victory. And a game where a side can't score a decisive victory is simply no fun.
Originally posted by Nemesis7884 has nothing to do with trolling - its a simple fact that themepark mmos rely on constant new content being released - name one themepark where this has been different?
Sandbox MMOs aren't that popular or there would be more.
Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop and maintain, yet most all MMOs are still Themeparks.
Sandbox may be what you like, but it seems there are a LOT of people who prefer the other.
In three statements, you did not even attempt to respond to Nemesis's remarks. Did you click "quote" on the wrong post?
And by the by... Sandbox MMOs are actually more complicated to develop than themeparks. Themeparks are all about large amounts of static, guided content that players can churn through. However, it's always the same experience. Every character doing the same quests is getting the same experience from it.
Sandbox, on the other hand, is open. There are no rails. There is no guided content. The developers establish the setting (the world, lore, etc), they create the various game systems, create the content used for and by those systems, set the rules, and then let the players go. The worlds tend to be more dynamic and fluid, and the experience for one character will never be the same as that for another one... no matter how many alts one creates. The developers have to take all possible scenarios into account, and even be prepared to deal with some they didn't think of, because players will always find ways of combining systems that are unexpected. It's what is referred to as 'emergent gameplay'.
The more freedom a player is given in a game, the more complicated the game is to design on the back end.
Originally posted by Yamota I almost dont believe saying this but, after trying out the boring, repetetive PvP in Cyrodil, I think this games need instanced PvP arenas. I had much more fun in WAR instanced PvP arenas than I have close to in Cyrodil PvP which is all zerg with pointless of flipping keeps back and forth and no side actually seem to score a true victory. And a game where a side can't score a decisive victory is simply no fun.
I wouldn't be surprised if BGs are added. Arena matches should suffice and won't break lore.
Originally posted by Yamota I almost dont believe saying this but, after trying out the boring, repetetive PvP in Cyrodil, I think this games need instanced PvP arenas. I had much more fun in WAR instanced PvP arenas than I have close to in Cyrodil PvP which is all zerg with pointless of flipping keeps back and forth and no side actually seem to score a true victory. And a game where a side can't score a decisive victory is simply no fun.
I wouldn't be surprised if BGs are added. Arena matches should suffice and won't break lore.
If they do add arena ever I hope there is an option for 1vs1 as well. Gladiator style...
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
I find that sandbox games get boring far more quickly than ones with stories. In MMORPG it seems as if "sandbox" is a glowing term of praise and "themepark" is something that people say with a sneer. Well, not everyone likes to play Minecraft. And sandbox games are limited by the tools that they provide and the structures in the game; killing mobs without a reason is not more engaging than following a story line.
My real issue with MMOs is that the story lines have become so sloppy and thin, and the things that you have to do to progress them are so repetitive and trivial. In that respect, ESO stands out in the quality of the stories and in tying the tasks to the story lines in some coherent way.
There are 300+ hours of things to do at launch. If you play 10 hours a week that's eight months of things to do, and that is a hell of a lot of content for a newly released game. If you don't like the style, of course, that's a defect. But for people who do that's a lot - and we'll have to see what else they add. The longer term game is still being formed, with PvP and adventure zones. But I'm perfectly OK just noodling around for a few months and letting them shake out the end game structures.
I've yet to see anyone who claims that this is singleplayer or doesn't do enough to encourage grouping explain themselves. You're just stating it as if it's a given without backing up your assertions. I've grouped all over the fucking place while leveling. In quests, for the skull and crossbones bosses, for public dungeons, in delves, just while doing quests. I've worked with other players more for the leveling content of this game than I have in any other MMO I've played. Except EVE but that's a sandbox. And it doesn't really have leveling content. Just grinding content. Grinding is boring without people to talk to.
What exactly is it you want? Quests so hard they can't be done solo? That may work at launch but even with the megaserver design players who come in late will be punished by this. You don't need a mechanic to force you into grouping, just group.
Agree with OP. In my case I couldn't even play it a month (quest-centric gameplay, lack of community, no meaningful death penalty, on rails zone structure, fast travel trivializing movement around the game world being a few of the issues).
Originally posted by Nemesis7884 has nothing to do with trolling - its a simple fact that themepark mmos rely on constant new content being released - name one themepark where this has been different?
Sandbox MMOs aren't that popular or there would be more.
Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop and maintain, yet most all MMOs are still Themeparks.
Sandbox may be what you like, but it seems there are a LOT of people who prefer the other.
There isn't a single big-budget/high-quality sandbox, so we don't know actually. Those are your assumptions, when we get big sandbox games and more variety in sandboxes we can actually start talking about the subject with any reference to reality.
We've been getting years and years new themeparks based on Wow's success, and because there's guaranteed initial sales before the unavoidable "I'm not satisfied with this game" (you can replace the word 'game' with 'themepark').
It's a lot scarier for a studio to start working on a huge sandbox with unknown reception and results, compared to working on a big themepark with at least almost guaranteed limited success, and with luck chances for big success (these companies under their delusions aim for that big success, which has not happened since Wow).
Another guy who has joined the site to complain about TESO, once again I have to question the validity of posters who just turn up to slate the game, then if he is like the last two disappear.
This one tells us he has not even played the game after Beta!
I would ask the OP, what is the last MMO you played for five years?
Another guy who has joined the site to complain about TESO, once again I have to question the validity of posters who just turn up to slate the game, then if he is like the last two disappear.
I would ask the OP, what is the last MMO you played for five years?
It's the same people making alt accounts. The posts are the exact same every time. Just ignore them and move on, WildStar comes out soon, they will start blindly hating that with frothing mouths and much nerd rage.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Originally posted by Yamota I almost dont believe saying this but, after trying out the boring, repetetive PvP in Cyrodil, I think this games need instanced PvP arenas. I had much more fun in WAR instanced PvP arenas than I have close to in Cyrodil PvP which is all zerg with pointless of flipping keeps back and forth and no side actually seem to score a true victory. And a game where a side can't score a decisive victory is simply no fun.
I wouldn't be surprised if BGs are added. Arena matches should suffice and won't break lore.
If they do add arena ever I hope there is an option for 1vs1 as well. Gladiator style...
Me too, it's annoying that every game so far which has arena does not have 1v1. "But there's duels, and classes are not balanced 1v1" I dont care, I want to fight 1v1 in arena with rewards, duels does not come even close, and unbalance has very little meaning to me, especially in a game like ESO that has very open character building with tons of abilities coming outside of the chosen class.
Originally posted by fivoroth No MMO has enough content to lAst you 2-5years. The only way to play an mmo for this long is if like doing the same content over and over and over again.
I don't get where people get the whole notion that mmos can last for years. That's only if you are content of grinding like crazy and repeating the same content for infinity. It's all grinding for pointless stuff after you go through the real unique content.
You are completely wrong, and it's probably not your fault. Ultima Online lasted me five years, and it should have been longer. In fact, it's still running a sub today, and it's been 17 years. While it's mostly nostalgia, still, you can't really argue with it's success.
The game wasn't structured to feed you content. It was structured to provide you with the tools to create your own. It also provided you with just as much reward as there was consequence. Your actions meant something. You owned a piece of the world, which is lost on most people. Today, kids consider housing an extension of your bank vault, but it means so much more than that in regards to retention rate. There were little sub-economies in the game, such as selling mounts and houses for example. I think having multiple layers of economy is brutally important for the longevity of a game. Progression came fairly slowly, but not TOO slow to dissuade you from playing. There was a sense of fear when leaving town, but the 'over the top' view and lack of grouping functionality promoted small group PvP or solo PvP. You never got caught up in a zerg, and rarely in a situation where you were grossly outnumbered.
Don't get me wrong, that game had a ton of flaws that have been fixed over the years. But some of the most important things that that game did to bring you into the world and keep you there, are lost to today's MMO developers. Most of you can't understand, because you think that your game does it best. You haven't experienced it done right, and it's not your fault. Though, I've played many typed of MMO's, and I know which one does the best. There is a reason games in the past often stayed in their prime for years, while games today will be lucky to make it past three months.
It's not because us old timers are wrong. That much I know.
When I was writing my post, the only two games which I could think of that could be potentially played for ages if they float your boat were UO and EVE online.
UO was actually the very first MMO I tried. I didn't play at release mind you but I really enjoyed it for a few months. I could've probably gone on playing it for ages but it proved way too slow paced for me. UO seemed like a very nice concept at a time, a huge world where you get better by doing things - aka purely skill based progression. I loved the idea but didn't hook me up.
Then I tried EQ and I thought that that game was an abomination. Progress was painfully slow and what you were actually doing felt like ultra mega grinding, aka Lineage 2 style.
I am so sad that WoW decided to copy EQ and not UO. If WoW copied UO, probably the vast majority of MMOs nowadays would be using skill based horizontal progression.
Which oldschool games stayed in their prime for years? What does EQ/DAOC have that current MMOs don't have other than the fact that a lot of you guys started with those games? They had just as much content as current MMOs. But people were willing to do mindless grinding at the time. That's the main difference.
WoW's model must be the best then. Cause it is a game which is kicking everyone's collective asses for over a decade. It must be the best thing since sliced bread if it has such crazy retention.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
ESO doesn't really feel like an mmo, there is not much incentive to group and no world pvp outside Cyrodiil, you only group for dungeons and pvp groups. It is a good game but it seems like it is the type of game you beat and never touch again instead of an MMO that captures your attention for playing even after you complete end game content.
Lets say someone played this slowly and completed all the content and pve quests in cyodiil and achieved the top veteran rank. This would take about 1-3 months depending on how long you play each day. After you do this, you are not gonna wanna repeat it with a new class, not me anyway, I hate repeating quests in Elder Scrolls games. So now you can run dungeons and get some gear, they also have the adventure zones but those will get old quick, there isn't many but will be more with content updates and the eventual expansion.
Still, I like PVE in a MMO but what keeps me playing long term is PVP, the pvp in this is simply repetitive! It is fun at first but gets boring quickly, I didn't sub after playing the beta because of this. If you have played large scale pvp games before as I have, like planetside 2 then your standards will be very high. Planetside 2 has a lot of variety and almost every single battle feels new and different, it only feels repetitive if you are zerging the enemy and outnumber them a lot, but if you can find big battles where both sides are almost even or smaller battles like that then it doesn't feel repetitive at all and always feels new, every battle progresses different with the positions of the enemy and your team and coordination among the group if you are in an organized outfit or even just in the chat.
ESO pvp has no strategy a all, its just a zerg vs zerg fest. All you do is seige a keep, then rush it, that is it, it gets old quickly because the Terrain has almost no variety, it all looks similar, there are no vehicles or air vehicles (obviously not because its a fantasy mmo but still, it makes it have less variety). Simply put, ESO is not for anyone who likes PVP more than PVE in a MMO, there are no arenas, no battlegrounds, it isn't truly open world pvp since all pvp is limited to Cryodiil and it just becomes a zerg fest in the end.
If you want good pvp, play planetside 2 or wait for everquest next, warhammer 40,000 eternal crusade and Wildstar.
I'll be critical of ESO where criticism is due, but it's not here.
Any game that tries to reduce the need for alts and make a game that tries to keep the focus on one character is good IMO.
Comments
You are completely wrong, and it's probably not your fault. Ultima Online lasted me five years, and it should have been longer. In fact, it's still running a sub today, and it's been 17 years. While it's mostly nostalgia, still, you can't really argue with it's success.
The game wasn't structured to feed you content. It was structured to provide you with the tools to create your own. It also provided you with just as much reward as there was consequence. Your actions meant something. You owned a piece of the world, which is lost on most people. Today, kids consider housing an extension of your bank vault, but it means so much more than that in regards to retention rate. There were little sub-economies in the game, such as selling mounts and houses for example. I think having multiple layers of economy is brutally important for the longevity of a game. Progression came fairly slowly, but not TOO slow to dissuade you from playing. There was a sense of fear when leaving town, but the 'over the top' view and lack of grouping functionality promoted small group PvP or solo PvP. You never got caught up in a zerg, and rarely in a situation where you were grossly outnumbered.
Don't get me wrong, that game had a ton of flaws that have been fixed over the years. But some of the most important things that that game did to bring you into the world and keep you there, are lost to today's MMO developers. Most of you can't understand, because you think that your game does it best. You haven't experienced it done right, and it's not your fault. Though, I've played many typed of MMO's, and I know which one does the best. There is a reason games in the past often stayed in their prime for years, while games today will be lucky to make it past three months.
It's not because us old timers are wrong. That much I know.
Nothing about TESO "screams buy to play", that's only the sound of your own hopes...
In your version of the internet, everyone may be "overwhelmingly negative" about ESO, but in the majority of reviews I've seen the game is rated between 5 and 7, which is "average to good". It's not the second coming, but that doesn't mean a huge number of people aren't playing it and enjoying it.
But don't worry, there are scores of games currently in development that are going to be incredibly good. At least until they are released, anyway...
SWTOR has a different story line for each class with choices that actually make a difference in each story's development. ESO has one story with no choices, no replayability, and no real roleplayability. It's a bad stand alone game played out in a multi-player setting.
Selective reading much?
He mentions 4 games... WS is one of them. Yet you come to the conclusion that his entire post was really all about getting people to play WS. This is even after he gives a lengthy description of what he didn't enjoy about ESO's PvP, and examples of how he feels it has been or can be done better.
But to you, he's just getting people to play WS... Wow. How much more dishonest can you be? And how would you pick WS? Because it's the one coming out the soonest? He talks about Planetside 2 the most throughout the post, but somehow a brief mention of it at the tail end of the post = "his post was all about getting people to play WS". Amazing.
Seriously, do you people think at all about what you post before posting it?
Sandbox MMOs aren't that popular or there would be more.
Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop and maintain, yet most all MMOs are still Themeparks.
Sandbox may be what you like, but it seems there are a LOT of people who prefer the other.
There are very FEW choices in SWTOR that matter.
Even in the low levels of ESO you have to make choices that affect your progression. Who lives/dies, etc.
I bought SWTOR, but let's face it...that game was BAD at launch. They DID make it better (except for their view of f2p is crap).
Anyway, saying SWTOR's choices actually mattered is a bit deceitful.
There are a lot of posts here complaining that it takes too long to finish all three quest lines, so the game clearly has "too much" content for a lot of people. (Yes, it's questing. Yes, the single player games had almost as many hours of questing, Really.) Now we're seeing the claim that there is too little to do.
It's just obnoxious to assert, in advance, that a new game will not generate any new content; that the PvP won't be refined, and so on. What I'll do is not to try and play crystal ball about whether a game will keep my interest for a decade - I can't imagine one that would. I'll play it as long as I enjoy it and I'll stop when I don't. There are a ton of things to do in this game, and by any reasonable metric you'd get plenty of value for your money if you like the sort of game that this is.
In three statements, you did not even attempt to respond to Nemesis's remarks. Did you click "quote" on the wrong post?
And by the by... Sandbox MMOs are actually more complicated to develop than themeparks. Themeparks are all about large amounts of static, guided content that players can churn through. However, it's always the same experience. Every character doing the same quests is getting the same experience from it.
Sandbox, on the other hand, is open. There are no rails. There is no guided content. The developers establish the setting (the world, lore, etc), they create the various game systems, create the content used for and by those systems, set the rules, and then let the players go. The worlds tend to be more dynamic and fluid, and the experience for one character will never be the same as that for another one... no matter how many alts one creates. The developers have to take all possible scenarios into account, and even be prepared to deal with some they didn't think of, because players will always find ways of combining systems that are unexpected. It's what is referred to as 'emergent gameplay'.
The more freedom a player is given in a game, the more complicated the game is to design on the back end.
My gaming blog
Very well put!
My gaming blog
I wouldn't be surprised if BGs are added. Arena matches should suffice and won't break lore.
If they do add arena ever I hope there is an option for 1vs1 as well. Gladiator style...
I find that sandbox games get boring far more quickly than ones with stories. In MMORPG it seems as if "sandbox" is a glowing term of praise and "themepark" is something that people say with a sneer. Well, not everyone likes to play Minecraft. And sandbox games are limited by the tools that they provide and the structures in the game; killing mobs without a reason is not more engaging than following a story line.
My real issue with MMOs is that the story lines have become so sloppy and thin, and the things that you have to do to progress them are so repetitive and trivial. In that respect, ESO stands out in the quality of the stories and in tying the tasks to the story lines in some coherent way.
There are 300+ hours of things to do at launch. If you play 10 hours a week that's eight months of things to do, and that is a hell of a lot of content for a newly released game. If you don't like the style, of course, that's a defect. But for people who do that's a lot - and we'll have to see what else they add. The longer term game is still being formed, with PvP and adventure zones. But I'm perfectly OK just noodling around for a few months and letting them shake out the end game structures.
I've yet to see anyone who claims that this is singleplayer or doesn't do enough to encourage grouping explain themselves. You're just stating it as if it's a given without backing up your assertions. I've grouped all over the fucking place while leveling. In quests, for the skull and crossbones bosses, for public dungeons, in delves, just while doing quests. I've worked with other players more for the leveling content of this game than I have in any other MMO I've played. Except EVE but that's a sandbox. And it doesn't really have leveling content. Just grinding content. Grinding is boring without people to talk to.
What exactly is it you want? Quests so hard they can't be done solo? That may work at launch but even with the megaserver design players who come in late will be punished by this. You don't need a mechanic to force you into grouping, just group.
There isn't a single big-budget/high-quality sandbox, so we don't know actually. Those are your assumptions, when we get big sandbox games and more variety in sandboxes we can actually start talking about the subject with any reference to reality.
We've been getting years and years new themeparks based on Wow's success, and because there's guaranteed initial sales before the unavoidable "I'm not satisfied with this game" (you can replace the word 'game' with 'themepark').
It's a lot scarier for a studio to start working on a huge sandbox with unknown reception and results, compared to working on a big themepark with at least almost guaranteed limited success, and with luck chances for big success (these companies under their delusions aim for that big success, which has not happened since Wow).
Another guy who has joined the site to complain about TESO, once again I have to question the validity of posters who just turn up to slate the game, then if he is like the last two disappear.
This one tells us he has not even played the game after Beta!
I would ask the OP, what is the last MMO you played for five years?
It's the same people making alt accounts. The posts are the exact same every time. Just ignore them and move on, WildStar comes out soon, they will start blindly hating that with frothing mouths and much nerd rage.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Me too, it's annoying that every game so far which has arena does not have 1v1. "But there's duels, and classes are not balanced 1v1" I dont care, I want to fight 1v1 in arena with rewards, duels does not come even close, and unbalance has very little meaning to me, especially in a game like ESO that has very open character building with tons of abilities coming outside of the chosen class.
When I was writing my post, the only two games which I could think of that could be potentially played for ages if they float your boat were UO and EVE online.
UO was actually the very first MMO I tried. I didn't play at release mind you but I really enjoyed it for a few months. I could've probably gone on playing it for ages but it proved way too slow paced for me. UO seemed like a very nice concept at a time, a huge world where you get better by doing things - aka purely skill based progression. I loved the idea but didn't hook me up.
Then I tried EQ and I thought that that game was an abomination. Progress was painfully slow and what you were actually doing felt like ultra mega grinding, aka Lineage 2 style.
I am so sad that WoW decided to copy EQ and not UO. If WoW copied UO, probably the vast majority of MMOs nowadays would be using skill based horizontal progression.
Which oldschool games stayed in their prime for years? What does EQ/DAOC have that current MMOs don't have other than the fact that a lot of you guys started with those games? They had just as much content as current MMOs. But people were willing to do mindless grinding at the time. That's the main difference.
WoW's model must be the best then. Cause it is a game which is kicking everyone's collective asses for over a decade. It must be the best thing since sliced bread if it has such crazy retention.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
We'll have to see what the additional content brings, a few smart moves could change that.
Even so, I'll definitely get my money's worth. Haven't been this into an mmo in quite some time.
I'll be critical of ESO where criticism is due, but it's not here.
Any game that tries to reduce the need for alts and make a game that tries to keep the focus on one character is good IMO.