Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The impossible task
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I would actually disagree but with an explanation.
I think it IS possible to create an online game with all the features of the single player game (with some finagling regarding level areas) but it just wouldn't work well.
so, you could have it so that players could kill every npc. It just would cause issues with other players.
you could have it so that players could roll lots o' cheese down mountains. I imagine there would be a point where the game engine would have to limit what was being rendered on the screen as you could feasibly have 100 players with as much cheese as they could carry trying to all roll them down hill. And we know this would happen.
You could have it so that players could steal everything they see. But of course we know what would happen.
So all the features could be there but it would be a lot of work for nothing. All npc's would be killed the moment they appeared, everything would be stolen as soon as it appeared, etc.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
so if a dev takes all the features of ES and calls it 'fred flintstone' then its all just a theory to you. and that of course is a biased free view...right
you guys are something else...lol
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Darkfall is profitable for a niche game, yes, and I'm sure it's developers are quite happy. It's still a niche game, and still not sufficient to meet the standards you have set for ESO, so it's an example that we can get close, not an example that your standards can be met.
And yes, in business, profits and possibility usually end up meaning the same thing. At the very least, a product has to break even, and that is usually only accepted if it leads consumers to buying other products from that same company. An ES MMO that could do everything you want, break even, and lead to possible products in other genres would work and would be possible; unfortunately, there isn't a lot of other places to go with it. The single player games are doing fine on their own without an MMO to boost them. Good luck getting anyone to make toys or movies out of the franchise. In the end, if an idea starts and finishes in the same conversation, which is what is happening with this conversation, it's generally considered impossible. If one of the major assumptions of the conversations change, than it's a different conversation and possibly a different outcome, but until you can show how to change the basic realities underlying this conversation, a game that meets your initial standards is impossible because it will never get beyond the same initial conversation. For it to be possible, you have to change either the standards in question, or the market and tools available to make your standards a reality.
wrong flat out wrong.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Saying that is the same as saying it's functionally impossible because no one will ever bother with it because it's not worth it. The only way to change the conversation and that inevitable truth is to change at least some of the the underlying assumptions and that is something the OP is not willing to do.
That is from your original post....
That is what i base my reasoning on.
You talk about the specific task of turning ESO in to a more "true" ES game. Hench why i said it can be done in theory, as you have pointed out. But that to do it "for real" is a impossible task due to the following things.
* Cost: It will be expensive and there is not way to know if they will see any return on said money.
* SWG-NGE: No sane company will do a game wide change and risk repeating what SONY went through.
* Investors: They like money and hate costs
* The fans of ESO: They hate change. (as you have proved)
This have been a good conversation
So show me a product that hasn't led to other products or services, has managed to get the level of popularity you seem to expect (and no, Darkfall does not work here), hasn't been discontinued, and the company is still around to absorb the loss. That is what you are asking for. Until you can show me such a product, yes, profitability does equate to possibility.
Darkfall comes really, really close. Eve comes really, really close. Even Wurm does a good job of getting in the ballpark, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples that would be in the same boat as the above. None can be said to meet your standards, and therefore, given the sample pool we have to work with, I am forced to say that it's impossible within all of the known methods of creating MMOs today, and it's going to take a major sea change in the genre for it to be possible. If you are willing to provide that level of change, great, I'll be all over your game; until then, quit wasting time in the forums complaining about how Zenimax is somehow worse than the rest of MMO developers out there.
What about moding the game ? Is it possible to make an open source mmo accessible at all time by anyone for them to mod it at will ? Would that be an endless amount of patch and corruption of files?
Moding is probably in the top 3 features of an ES game.
SO in other words you're framing your whole thread in a manner where everyone must agree with you? Over a quote that you keep referring to.
What is the exact quote and it's context that is the source of all of this?
Context is everything, there's a lot to TES that goes against the grain of a multi-player experience, the entire experience is tailored to just one character, one central being to manipulate the world or it's inhabitants.
Also...An open world, factionless, skill based game isn't automatically a TES experience, there's a lot more to creating TES online than that. ESO has some of it, other games have other aspects, no game features all aspects. There are also a lot of character freedoms that work against online multi-player scenarios, which would explain why no game does feature all aspects.
When someone says it's impossible, what they probably mean is with a realistic budget, scope, avoiding feature creep, and keeping a fair as well as balanced game world. Again context is everything when it comes to such statements. As someone who admits to being a developer you should understand that, as it's part of the business.
There's a lot to discuss here if you want a real answer, one that is not tied around your proverbial noose anyway, no healthy debate can be framed in such a manner.
In closing I'd say in some contexts it's possible in others not so much, if we're looking at it realistically and from more than one agenda driven angle.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I already tried the logic argument of 'context' but it won't work. It doesn't matter what you say, you are wrong unless you agree with him even though after repeatedly asking him about the context of this 'quote' and why it would change the answer to his actual thread original post, he just ignores it and asks if it's possible implement the sample mechanics he listed and if you do, he's right...if you don't, you're wrong.
It's a futile thread with the main and original poster not able to understand why context is important.
No harm in trying (again) lol, but yeah, as others have said if that is the case, then it's a pointless "scratch my own back" argument. Any feature can be put on a list, creating a cohesive whole from that list is something else entirely. A studio being allowed to try that is something to consider as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well, you are not providing a content for any worthy converstation either.
You made a usual "I want the game to be like this" post, more than handful on these can be found on these boards and all are equally non-constructive and pointless.
Everyone has their own preferences and there is no point considering the game what what it isn't or what it "should" have been.
Basically you came here, saying the "impossible" task is not impossible, look it is easy! while having no insight how to actually accomplish any of what you have said.
Claiming something being "easy" without having an idea what it takes on project, resources nor design level is silly...
Of course it's not impossible, but it would be very difficult - requiring probably taking the game down for a year or more and completely revamping it.
What the devs should have done is dropped the design concepts baggage they carried across from previous games they worked on, and made a greater effort to incorporate concepts that made the ES single player games considerably more popular and well regarded than ESO, in particular the open world design. If they had done that I am quite positive the game would have received a vastly greater reception and would have retained far more subs than they currently have. But to do that properly now would require the use of a time machine.
MMO audience is much larger than ES PC audience, thus it would not be very smart thing to do...
You have no basis for claiming that the game would have been more successful if they followed different design model. Is is all just your bias you are projecting onto others, despite ignoring the fundamental difference between an idea, a design and actual implementation.
My basis is that this has been a very common theme in reviews and complaints from players: that the game strayed too far from it's ES roots. Add to that many of the devs came from DAOC and, lo and behold, much of ESO game design and philosophy has shadowed this. People initially bought the game on the ES IP. Many quit because it strayed too far from this (more than can be justified than what was required in making an ES game an MMO). Your denial of this indicates to me it is your bias that prevents you from recognising some very obvious truths.
That is what I said - it is your bias only. You are taking selective opinions found in a drop in the bucket and extrapolating it into ridiculous claims how the game would do if ...
You make false assumption that because people supposedly do not like current game, they would like the game if it was done differently - while that "differently" is nothing you can actually experience.
From there, you make that utterly ridiculous claim that this subset of players who would like the game that does not exist is somewhat larger than the current population you do not even know the size of.
You do not have a crytstal ball nor any data to support your stance.
Sorry I am not buying anyone's bridge. If you call that denial, so be it.
No, it is clearly your bias, and blindness, that prevents you from seeing what is patently clear. Pre-launch, this game relied heavily on the single game's very successful IP. This is clear. It was advertised this way. Undeniable. Many quit because it strayed too far from some of the fundamental ES aspects like open world. This is clearly there in many reviews and user comments. Undeniable. The game would have been much more successful if it stayed truer to the IP it is (for freak's sake) named after. To deny this is simply being wilfully ignorant.
Talking about ignorance, gameplay =/= IP.
See my edit above.
It's pretty clear from your responses you are not following what I'm saying. Your response and above comment almost come across as a non-sequitur.
OK, I suppose I have to start you off: No one said gameplay = IP. Certainly not me.
I do understand what you are saying, I am just pointing out that your assumptions are baseless.
I think you do not understand what IP means...or otherwise explain how the game is not "staying truer to the IP".
I'll post something that someone else said regarding this that really resonated with me. I may not exactly agree with every point they made, but it is truer to the ES IP than the current DAOC-esque, standard themepark (quest chains in boxed-in level zones) that the devs went with in this game.
"I bought a 6mo subscription knowing what I was getting into- 6 months is a feasible amount of time that if the dev team has the resources to improve the game in ways it needs to be, we will see some of the major issues fixed. If not within that timeframe it will likely stagnate and perhaps with one expansion, likely going free to play/maintenance mode. That being said, I think I’ve realized I need something far less guided and more emergent. I won’t say sandbox, at least based on the definition most would offer up on ‘sandbox’, but an MMO that is structured more like a fantasy simulation rather than a themepark follow-the-quests MMO. I think a lot of MMO vets might be feeling this way as well.
What ESO and other MMOs just aren’t offering: meaning, value, and persistence.
-Robust AI/world. Not just in combat, but in that they aren’t just standing around waiting to be killed. Any given type of NPC has actual goals. Smugglers try to sneak goods into city while highwaymen try to steal them and city guards try to kill the highwaymen and confiscate the illegal goods for their lord. All this is happening whether a player is present or not.
-Minimal questing. Quests are good and well, but they should be rare. Think the vanilla WoW class quests. Difficult, long duration, and very meaningful. Not the core content.
-Class-less. Skill trees/lines, with a limited number of skillpoints/lines you can have at a given time. Think ESO, but you can only pick 3 skill lines at character creation, but from any class/weapon/guild/etc. No respeccing! Create your own custom playstyle based on how you want to play, and live with it.
-A huge emphasis on gathering, crafting, exploring, trading, and affecting the world. Rare spawn vendors with high quality items you can’t get elsewhere. Create economic scarcity to add meaning. Certain special crafting materials so rare you might only find one node a week.
-No stat treadmill in the traditional sense. Items would grant bonuses or unique skills/perks, but it wouldn’t be about chasing a +1 strength breastplate.
-Open world faction based PvP. Again, create meaningful things to fight over, not contrived PvP zones/objectives with score/points. As the victor you get the thrill of winning and access to whatever you were fighting over. No score at the end to say who “won” if your faction/guild is benefiting in control of key locations and valuable resources then you are winning.
The graphics could look like Minecraft and I’d drop $30 a month to play something with this feature set."
Whether the game is class-less, open world PVP, questing, w/e. is all gameplay.
Again, gameplay =/= IP.
OK, so you do not understand what IP means so at least we got that sorted out.
As I said before, it is utterly pointless complaining what the game is not or what it should have been. The game was clearly not made to target audience you are a part of. No sky is falling because of that.
To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]