Ugh @ phasing...I prefer dynamic worlds shared by everyone.
I'm not taking a pass though. I'd still check it out.
Dynamic worlds? You mean like if I decide to let a city burn and get their first the city should be burnt down and then you have to go the path I chose? Or if I decide to let that city burn that in 15min it will be rebuilt with the same choices posed to you...aka pointless choices?
Look I get the buzzwordyness of wanting everything open world...its trendy for sure...but there are certainly cases where instancing and phasing would work best. ES gameplay is a good example of that.
I don't think anyone wants lame and pointless dynamic events where nothing matters and everything is zerged down only to reappear later once the event is tripped again by the next lot. That isn't ES.
I feel ESO gets a pass on abiding by the typical buzzword requests from gamers...ES did things the old school way. Long, complex, difficult, choices that matter...Removing this removes what made the ES games great. I hope they don't slap a standard mmorpg on top of their IP...it would suck.
The more ES like ESO is the better of a game it will be. The more they deviate from what makes people like the IP, to appeal to larger crowd ect...the worse the game will be.
Having an Elder Scrolls game with an online world and some pvp would be fantastic, but it has to actually be an Elder Scrolls game in every way...it cant just be the story and setting with standard mmorpg combat, quests, dynamic events (yes even a badass dragon attacking as a dynamic event is pointless if theres no reason to it). It the game takes this route its just going to be another big budget IP wasted.
I really hope Bethesda has some senses behind how the game will be played, and I hope they realize why people play ES and why people will hate a large deviation of this to mmorpg-ify it.
At this point a game like Darkfall is more true to TES than TES is...sad really.
hahahahahahhaaha.
So glad I got my invite so I can just laugh at people like this guy that have no idea, but he thinks he does.
Invite or no invite, DarkFall combat is very similar to Oblivion and Morrowind than TESO is.
Ill be honest, I picked up skyrim on the steam sale and have been playing it religiously. I actually thought "man this game would be awesome if it had Darkfall style weapon and skill switching mid combat" Its close, but there is no way to go from melee to magic to archery without pausing the game and manually switching it...which breaks the action.
And yes DF combat and ES combat is VERY similar, though DF is a bit more fast paced.
Ugh @ phasing...I prefer dynamic worlds shared by everyone.
I'm not taking a pass though. I'd still check it out.
Dynamic worlds? You mean like if I decide to let a city burn and get their first the city should be burnt down and then you have to go the path I chose? Or if I decide to let that city burn that in 15min it will be rebuilt with the same choices posed to you...aka pointless choices?
I wasn't directly comparing ESO with GW2. My point is I prefer the dynamic world route against the phasing route. GW2's implementation of dynamism is a step forward, but it's not the pinnacle of the model. I have no problem overcoming the obstacle that you, as another player, has set. As long as the system provides a way for me to undo you it wouldn't be a problem for me. To make things meaningful the turn around of events just has to be on a more realistic scale, and must affect the population. It should also not be so easy for one such as you to burn down the village. Plus this model supports the feature I want most from multiplayer games: share the experience with my comrades.
With phasing, the game offers a one way tiering for me. If they make it in such a way that I can go back any phase I want (i.e. in order to help a friend, etc) that would make it more bearable. A lot more trivial/artificial, yes, but bearable.
^ You forgot that if you're not on the same phase, even if you can "go back", you can't go forward, meaning anyone not caught up with you in the story can't join you. If they changed that, my apologies, but man, that is the definition of limitation when it comes to player interaction: either keep up or get out. But hey, some people seem to think that's the best way to do things. ESO could turn out to be the worst possible type of world for players like myself: a vast single server where there are invisible people everywhere trying to do things together at the same time through artificial means.
Comments
Dynamic worlds? You mean like if I decide to let a city burn and get their first the city should be burnt down and then you have to go the path I chose? Or if I decide to let that city burn that in 15min it will be rebuilt with the same choices posed to you...aka pointless choices?
Look I get the buzzwordyness of wanting everything open world...its trendy for sure...but there are certainly cases where instancing and phasing would work best. ES gameplay is a good example of that.
I don't think anyone wants lame and pointless dynamic events where nothing matters and everything is zerged down only to reappear later once the event is tripped again by the next lot. That isn't ES.
I feel ESO gets a pass on abiding by the typical buzzword requests from gamers...ES did things the old school way. Long, complex, difficult, choices that matter...Removing this removes what made the ES games great. I hope they don't slap a standard mmorpg on top of their IP...it would suck.
The more ES like ESO is the better of a game it will be. The more they deviate from what makes people like the IP, to appeal to larger crowd ect...the worse the game will be.
Having an Elder Scrolls game with an online world and some pvp would be fantastic, but it has to actually be an Elder Scrolls game in every way...it cant just be the story and setting with standard mmorpg combat, quests, dynamic events (yes even a badass dragon attacking as a dynamic event is pointless if theres no reason to it). It the game takes this route its just going to be another big budget IP wasted.
I really hope Bethesda has some senses behind how the game will be played, and I hope they realize why people play ES and why people will hate a large deviation of this to mmorpg-ify it.
Invite or no invite, DarkFall combat is very similar to Oblivion and Morrowind than TESO is.
As for TESO, the world is built on instancing and phasing, this is a fact that even the die hard fan can't counter.
Ill be honest, I picked up skyrim on the steam sale and have been playing it religiously. I actually thought "man this game would be awesome if it had Darkfall style weapon and skill switching mid combat" Its close, but there is no way to go from melee to magic to archery without pausing the game and manually switching it...which breaks the action.
And yes DF combat and ES combat is VERY similar, though DF is a bit more fast paced.
I wasn't directly comparing ESO with GW2. My point is I prefer the dynamic world route against the phasing route. GW2's implementation of dynamism is a step forward, but it's not the pinnacle of the model. I have no problem overcoming the obstacle that you, as another player, has set. As long as the system provides a way for me to undo you it wouldn't be a problem for me. To make things meaningful the turn around of events just has to be on a more realistic scale, and must affect the population. It should also not be so easy for one such as you to burn down the village. Plus this model supports the feature I want most from multiplayer games: share the experience with my comrades.
With phasing, the game offers a one way tiering for me. If they make it in such a way that I can go back any phase I want (i.e. in order to help a friend, etc) that would make it more bearable. A lot more trivial/artificial, yes, but bearable.