I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
Never once heard anyone complain about the 40+ skills in lineage2. No one quit the game for that in fact everyone loved the pvp aspect of the game. People quit because the xp grind was super hardcore. Hitting cap a week after launch was not a thing. It would take months of daily grind if not a year and thats if ppl didnt pvp. When you saw a maxxed level character you were in awe.
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yeah, MOBAs like LoL and Dota 2 have more strategy and tactics to their combat than any MMORPG. But some people here cant admit that and instead use ignorant dog whistles like "action combat is just button mashing" or "tab target is more strategic".
Chess is a good example because its not how many different pieces you have, its about how they are used and when they are used that makes Chess a pinnacle of strategy. MMO developers and MMO players could learn from that.
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yeah, MOBAs like LoL and Dota 2 have more strategy and tactics to their combat than any MMORPG. But some people here cant admit that and instead use ignorant dog whistles like "action combat is just button mashing" or "tab target is more strategic".
Chess is a good example because its not how many different pieces you have, its about how they are used and when they are used that makes Chess a pinnacle of strategy. MMO developers and MMO players could learn from that.
It’s the difference between you the player having twitch skills determine the success of your character vs the characters skills playing the primary role.
For your chess example, I once played a game called Archon which was chess, but you had action combat between the pieces. It was fun, but at the end of the day it was no longer really chess because twitch skills took precedence over mental ones. Neither is the “right” way but I will always prefer my chess to have conflict resolved the old fashioned way just like I will always prefer my characters skill with a sword matter more than my ability to hit 3 buttons and 2 keys in rapid fashion.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Phones are doing to consoles, what consoles did to PC. They have completely dumbed down the entire genre. The more games that build as a phone crossover, the more you will see less skill required. The less tools you have at your disposal, the harder it is to make something skillful.
Is it technically possible to make a skillful game using the least common denominator? Yeah its technically possible, but certainly will be more rare.
I wonder if these console players believe the same thing about phones games? Do they think the games designed with phone crossover in mind are as skillful as the consoles exclusive games?
Im on the middle with this I dont wanna play with 40+ skills but 5 are too few A game with 10-15 skills would be the best for me That is for mmos for sp rpgs especially if its dnd I dont mind more skills even better if the game is turn based
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
EQ2 never really caught on, even EQ1 is still doing better, and yes, it has a lot of 'hot buttons' but you had to focus on which ones suited and 'level' them up accordingly, which imo was also a huge part of the 'Evercrack' phenomena, it also highlights why on PC at least, it is possible to have a greater amount of variation than it is on Consoles, it is just the way it is, not against Consoles per se, but when i play FFXIV on my PS4, i do so with a mouse and keyboard, but that is a 'back up' option for me at best, its decent in terms of gameplay, but not as good as on my PC.
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I agree with your take, but "modern" MMO action combat is not as good as MOBA, there is the rub. If you remove trinity which was strategic and required thought and replace it with "group zerg" it is understandable that players are shouting "dumbed down". We know action combat can in its own way be as strategic as trinity, but at best modern MMORPG's only give us a taste of how good it could be.
I dunno, it looks promising but the fact it's designed for consoles too suggests things will be dumbed down, both control wise and in general scope. The animations, particle effects and spell effects seem way over the top and I'm not sure how the engine will handle large guild fights. Time will tell.
Dumbed down controls wise? A tab target MMO like FF14 works just fine on console and action MMOs like BDO controls just fine on console.
And there are some PC MMOs like New World that would work just fine if they were ported to consoles.
Graphics for PC games always have options to make them playable on a wide range of configurations so why wouldnt the graphics be suitable for current consoles?
Normally PC gamers don't like the way a UI needs to be designed to also work on consoles. Games like the DC MMO. That also inudes the number of skills you can pool from and from the video, the later will be the case. Will have to see about the UI.
I would like to know about cross saves and cross play?
Or perhaps NCsoft realized that people dont want to fumble with 40 hotbar skills in large scale PvP.
Also, people only complain about MMOs being "dumbed down for consoles" when there is a console version.
Dont see people complaining about PC only MMOs like Guild Wars 2 being dumbed down for consoles.
Or, maybe, NCsoft looked at their financials and saw that their most successful PC game is Lineage 1 from 1998 making around $20 million in a 3 month period.
That's right because only having 5 skills available is the height of strategy. I forgot that pvp for some people is smashing buttons and hoping for the best. Not sure what the rest of your post is about. GW2 is guilty of this too. You can buy into the strategy rationale championed by devs but the reality is that those systems exist because 1. Consoles and 2. Easier development. The removal of options, skills, multiple classes, etc. is never for the benefit of the players, it just makes it easier for developers. And if you can only manage 5 skills in a pvp situation, I'm not so sure mmorpg pvp is for you.
Ahh the common pitfall where bloat is mistaken for depth and convoluted with strategy. The average MOBA features more depth and tactics then any hotbar humping MMORPG out there. The console argument is worthless too, all the way back to the Sega Genesis I have been playing the likes of Populous and Might and Magic on console, you know, the absolute classics “on PC.”
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I agree with your take, but "modern" MMO action combat is not as good as MOBA, there is the rub. If you remove trinity which was strategic and required thought and replace it with "group zerg" it is understandable that players are shouting "dumbed down". We know action combat can in its own way be as strategic as trinity, but at best modern MMORPG's only give us a taste of how good it could be.
Are you conflating holy trinity gameplay and tab target combat? You can have one without the other.
Tera had probably the best action combat so far and it used the holy trinity.
Trinity is ONE strategy. Which has its advantages: everybody knows it. But I would not call it "strategic", implying a lot a variations and possibilities.
When I was playing GW2 (the first year after its release) some players were dungeoning using a group of thieves or whatever. THAT, for it to work, required planning and coordination at a level beyond the one-fit-all-stupid trinity.
Trinity is ONE strategy. Which has its advantages: everybody knows it. But I would not call it "strategic", implying a lot a variations and possibilities.
When I was playing GW2 (the first year after its release) some players were dungeoning using a group of thieves or whatever. THAT, for it to work, required planning and coordination at a level beyond the one-fit-all-stupid trinity.
Trinity being ONE strategy is one thing. Entirely too many ARPGs are one character does everything through scrolls, potions, or other abilities. Putting many ARPG characters together in a group requires the players to determine any specialist functions -- who's going to heal, who's going to tank, who's going to do crowd control, etc. The ARPG approach is to delegate the functionality not by class or specialization, but by who is available and what gear they have.
In essence, the *players* impose the trinity regardless of the actual game mechanics. If there is really another strategy beyond the trinity approach, players are always free to adopt those despite the mechanisms present in the game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Trinity being ONE strategy is one thing. Entirely too many ARPGs are one character does everything through scrolls, potions, or other abilities. Putting many ARPG characters together in a group requires the players to determine any specialist functions -- who's going to heal, who's going to tank, who's going to do crowd control, etc. The ARPG approach is to delegate the functionality not by class or specialization, but by who is available and what gear they have.
In essence, the *players* impose the trinity regardless of the actual game mechanics. If there is really another strategy beyond the trinity approach, players are always free to adopt those despite the mechanisms present in the game.
I was enthusiastic when GW2 launched, thinking the same thing. My experience, playing that game for the first years though, was that it mostly devolved into chaos. It's a good idea when you are playing with a set group of friends, or guild mates which knew each other or perhaps coordinated on voice coms, but in pugs it just was a mess almost always.
The holy trinity isn't the only solution, of course, but it does provide some structure that people can understand. Tank takes the brunt of the damage, healer keeps people alive, dps fills in the rest. You could, perhaps, combine the tank and healer role (cleric/paladin) or some other system which is more novel, but I would argue that some sort of role structure is always going to be better than everyone can do everything.
I still love GW2, but most boss fights kind of devolve into a zerg, where you just do your rotation without much thought. Avoid the fire. Move out when the rings and arrows appear, move in when they invert, etc. Not that deep.
Trinity is ONE strategy. Which has its advantages: everybody knows it. But I would not call it "strategic", implying a lot a variations and possibilities.
When I was playing GW2 (the first year after its release) some players were dungeoning using a group of thieves or whatever. THAT, for it to work, required planning and coordination at a level beyond the one-fit-all-stupid trinity.
Trinity being ONE strategy is one thing. Entirely too many ARPGs are one character does everything through scrolls, potions, or other abilities. Putting many ARPG characters together in a group requires the players to determine any specialist functions -- who's going to heal, who's going to tank, who's going to do crowd control, etc. The ARPG approach is to delegate the functionality not by class or specialization, but by who is available and what gear they have.
In essence, the *players* impose the trinity regardless of the actual game mechanics. If there is really another strategy beyond the trinity approach, players are always free to adopt those despite the mechanisms present in the game.
ESO classes can do any role and characters can be built to focus solely on a particular one be it tanking, healing, or damage. There is no need for an established group of players to figure out who will do what on the spot. In groups so organized the only difference is that characters need not be of a particular class to fulfill their role of choice.
The flexibility of ESO classes just allows players to do so much more than one thing well when they aren't fulfilling their specific group role. While anyone can be a specialist when they need to be they can also be a generalist when they don't.
You could, perhaps, combine the tank and healer role (cleric/paladin) or some other system which is more novel, but I would argue that some sort of role structure is always going to be better than everyone can do everything.
There are very few games that allow everyone to do everything. Most games where character design is largely unfettered allow you to make your character really good at one thing but increasingly mediocre the more varied you try to make it.
For example, you could be a very good tank or very good healer but would be compromised in both if you chose to diversify.
Champions Online has a freeform character building system that lets you mix and match powers from a large number of sets that allows quite hybridized builds. That's all fine in casual content but at the high end anything other than builds tightly focused on a specific role are frowned upon. There they want tanks to be just that, and so forth.
Comments
Look no further then the likes of EQ2 to see that more is not better, it is so nonsensical that I am surprised this line of thinking still exists. Chess only has six different pieces, dumbed down for consoles I guess.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
For your chess example, I once played a game called Archon which was chess, but you had action combat between the pieces. It was fun, but at the end of the day it was no longer really chess because twitch skills took precedence over mental ones. Neither is the “right” way but I will always prefer my chess to have conflict resolved the old fashioned way just like I will always prefer my characters skill with a sword matter more than my ability to hit 3 buttons and 2 keys in rapid fashion.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Is it technically possible to make a skillful game using the least common denominator? Yeah its technically possible, but certainly will be more rare.
I wonder if these console players believe the same thing about phones games? Do they think the games designed with phone crossover in mind are as skillful as the consoles exclusive games?
I dont wanna play with 40+ skills but 5 are too few
A game with 10-15 skills would be the best for me
That is for mmos for sp rpgs especially if its dnd I dont mind more skills even better if the game is turn based
Trinity is ONE strategy. Which has its advantages: everybody knows it. But I would not call it "strategic", implying a lot a variations and possibilities.
When I was playing GW2 (the first year after its release) some players were dungeoning using a group of thieves or whatever. THAT, for it to work, required planning and coordination at a level beyond the one-fit-all-stupid trinity.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The holy trinity isn't the only solution, of course, but it does provide some structure that people can understand. Tank takes the brunt of the damage, healer keeps people alive, dps fills in the rest. You could, perhaps, combine the tank and healer role (cleric/paladin) or some other system which is more novel, but I would argue that some sort of role structure is always going to be better than everyone can do everything.
I still love GW2, but most boss fights kind of devolve into a zerg, where you just do your rotation without much thought. Avoid the fire. Move out when the rings and arrows appear, move in when they invert, etc. Not that deep.
ESO classes can do any role and characters can be built to focus solely on a particular one be it tanking, healing, or damage. There is no need for an established group of players to figure out who will do what on the spot. In groups so organized the only difference is that characters need not be of a particular class to fulfill their role of choice.
The flexibility of ESO classes just allows players to do so much more than one thing well when they aren't fulfilling their specific group role. While anyone can be a specialist when they need to be they can also be a generalist when they don't.
There are very few games that allow everyone to do everything. Most games where character design is largely unfettered allow you to make your character really good at one thing but increasingly mediocre the more varied you try to make it.
For example, you could be a very good tank or very good healer but would be compromised in both if you chose to diversify.
Champions Online has a freeform character building system that lets you mix and match powers from a large number of sets that allows quite hybridized builds. That's all fine in casual content but at the high end anything other than builds tightly focused on a specific role are frowned upon. There they want tanks to be just that, and so forth.