#1 Posted by Wolfgame (707 posts) -

I find Elder Scrolls Online fascinating in a number of ways, it seems almost archaic in its build up and desire to be the next big mmo, The game has the production values of the show stopper, it has the build up and name recognition that should make it rise above the competition, but that just isn't happening. I see more people making justifications for this game, I think the love for Skyrim is making it difficult for some of the more die hard fans to admit that the design and NDA practices of this title are incredibly scary. If I were sitting on a preorder for this game right now, I would be asking myself "Why is the NDA for media only lifted now, and not for the common player? What the hell is going on?" This may not even matter, but Massively has taken the chance to write a very damning "review" of the ESO beta, if anything it should spark some amount of hesitation from gamers. I'll go ahead and link to that here and highlight a few key points in this thread and my own personal comments as well. Article written by Eliot Lefebvre for Massively.Joystiq.com

This was not helped at all when the game actually did offer me a choice of what to do next. One quest involved the murder of an elven diplomat at the hands of the most obvious suspect in the world, and at the very end you have a choice: let the diplomat's wife kill the murderer or bring him to justice. It's an old scene, but it's one replete with potential drama, considerations of both sides, the prospect of making an enemy of a woman whom you sympathize with...

Wait, what's that? I talk to her for half a minute, and she just agrees to do what I want? That's somewhat less dramatic than I had expected. At that point, the whole drama vanishes into a happy vacuum, never to be spoken of again. If it gets brought up again in a way that matters later in the game, I would be very impressed; I certainly didn't get the sense that my choice would matter, nor did I ever see any sort of fallout from the choice I did make.

Am I nitpicking? Sort of. But considering that one of the big selling points for endgame in ESO is going back and doing the other factional storylines, I would hope that those stories are interesting, with a few twists and turns here and there. Perhaps it's too early to tell, but if I'm bored with a book on page 20, odds are I'm not going to tough it out for another 300 pages afterward.

This speaks to one of the bigger problems, the game has this grand desire to weave the player into the story, if anything it is like Star Wars The Old Republic, only it completely misses the mark on making the player feel engaged. Obviously I am speaking in broad strokes, but this is what Zenimax has felt would best represent their game. Less than 2 months until release and outside of stress test beta weekends critics and gamers alike are left worried that if these initial quests are proving so dull and monotonous it is only that much more apparent when the game takes that bold step to ask you to care about these characters without having an engaging story or pacing for the player to relate too.

Maybe this changes in the higher levels. But then, maybe all of this is better as you get further on. But that's cold comfort if you aren't having enough fun to keep playing to find out, isn't it?

Agreed...

I did encounter plenty of oddities. Armor skills, for instance, seemed to be quite firmly tied to particular playstyles, so there's little point to wearing heavy armor on a damage-oriented character. I also noticed no skills that specifically centered around gaining and holding threat, just a lot of skills centered on survivability. I'm going to give the game the benefit of a doubt and assume that I simply didn't notice the threat skills, or maybe there's another tanking mechanic that I'm not familiar with; otherwise I can see a lot of group combat devolving into the same sort of uncontrolled chaos of Guild Wars.

That's not good, one of the biggest features any mmos need is creating that demand for class compatibility. By that I mean you need to clearly demonstrate the benefit of bringing that bulky armored up warrior to maintain and hold threat, if it just dissolves into a flurry of attacks albeit flashing in different colors what purpose will there be in grouping. I can say that in my research I was unable to find clear information on this games group dynamics, maybe it is one reason that features such as "threat" control and end game raiding haven't been clearly elaborated on, but maybe this is all coming later.

That minor thrill, however, was not nearly enough to get me invested in the game. Indeed, the only thing that did keep me invested was trying fruitlessly to find something that I could point to and say, "This is why you should care about this game." And I kept coming up short. When all was said and done, the only real mark I could find unambiguously in its favor was the name, and that seems like a particularly poor conclusion.

Now we are getting to the gritty core of this game, this sentiment has frequently been expressed, the biggest problem is that this game isn't some generic free to play mmo being brought over and translated to enter the blob of games that came before it. ESO is asking to enter the hyper competitive mmo market as a top contender for your upfront retail purchase AND monthly fee without any discernible features to separate it from the pack. That is the biggest problem, there isn't a single thing the game does bad, but at the same time there isn't a single selling feature that is executed to make this game worth your time.

If you skipped most of the thread I would say at least read this closing

The trouble, ultimately, is that ESO is not a terrible game. It's functional, as it should be with release just around the corner. But it means that instead of being an endearing so-bad-it's-awesome sort of game, it winds up coming across as bland, unimaginative, and boring. Everything it's doing has been done better in other games, and while I keep thinking, "Maybe there's a more fun game over the next rise," my experiences over the beta weekend didn't make me at all eager to keep digging for it.

But if all of that still comes across like so much bleating, I'd raise the question of why we're 56 days out from launch and only now able to talk about impressions of the game outside of specific media tours at conventions. One wonders whether management is completely aware of how weak the game feels overall. Certainly this doesn't imply confidence with the product.

The last game I played that kept its NDA up this long before launch was Final Fantasy XIV's first incarnation, and that had brilliant ideas but terrible execution. This game has solid execution; it's just rather dry on creativity. Combine that with a pre-order bonus that pushes you to order the game sight unseen and a CE that offers an entirely separate race, and I'm leery. I won't say that the whole thing is just a cash grab -- obviously the developers want to make as much money as possible -- but I suspect that the studio knows the game isn't ready for prime time but isn't terribly interested in fixing it without seeing whether it's profitable.

And right now, I don't feel this game is worth your time. If you want a fantasy MMO based on quests, there are buckets of options even if you don't like World of Warcraft, most of which manage to do a better job with various aspects of gameplay while feeling far less generic. Lord of the Rings Online, Guild Wars,Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XIV... heck, if you really aren't satisfied without a personal narrative and somewhat floaty vaguely active combat, Guild Wars 2 exists, and while that game has its own problems, it delivers on most of the points that ESO seems to want to. It lets you build the sort of character you enjoy playing, and it also offers lots of reasons to explore over the horizon; yes, most of them are marked with waypoints, but they're not just another set of quests.

Maybe there's something else. Perhaps I'm just missing some key piece of information, some concept that will tie the whole game together. Perhaps if I just press a little further I'll see what makes people excited for the game. Perhaps I'm just completely wrong and not the target audience at all, but I've been trying to see what's there to like about the game even if I don't intend to play it over the long term. But there comes a point when you have to stop giving the game chances to win you over, when you have to say that it's giving you little reason to praise it at all. There comes a point when you just have to say, "No, this is in fact not all that good."

Unless you're an enormous fan of the Elder Scrolls franchise, there's not much to recommend ESO right now. It's another generic fantasy MMO in a field already filled with them. And I just don't get it.

Honestly I view this as a revolt, Massively has taken a strong stance here not sugar coating the quality of this game. I admire them for that, I think we will see a domino effect moving forward, Zenimax and Bethesda have made a concerted effort to keep these negative impressions of the game from the headlines as much as possible, but they are backed into a corner now as days tick down to release. I am not wishing poor performance of this game, but I feel that any game released under these pretenses, covertly trying to dissuade and shield itself from criticism has something to hide, it is intellectually insulting and if this is the developing trend for triple AAA mmos I can say that I would be here calling out any developer that attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer. At least have the respect to be honest with your customers, or even better take the opportunity to address these concerns. Unfortunately they have seen fit to label the users as the problem, out to disrupt their pesky NDA. They can't hide behind that forever, this won't be the last article that begins to shed light on why this game is running with one of the most secretive and misleading NDAs in recent mmo history.

#2 Posted by Vuud (1959 posts) -

Well, it is another fantasy MMO. The basic formula has gone unchanged for 15+ years or however long its been since Everquest.

#3 Edited by Aristotled (32 posts) -

You know the truly funny thing about the removal of the media NDA is that it seems most of the media has played only the low level content and it only gets worse the longer you attempt to drag on upwards. I've been in their "Psijic Order" internal testing (24/7 access) for about 6 months now and it really is the definition of a husk of a game. It looks pretty decent, but it is rife with technical issues from consistent combat lag and bewildering CTD's to still having obvious class design flaws(at least on what they claim to want to deliver to the player).

I will be truly surprised if this game manages to carve out even 250k players after 3 months.

It is nothing like Skyrim, but the overall feel of regular leveling zones is far too slow to satisfy the speed that MMO players like to cruise through single-player content, the "Synergies" are wonky and rarely actually work. Group combat does not work well and threat seems non-existent. They force exploration upon players, in a far worse way than SWTOR did, with Skyshards (3 give you a skill-point). Forcing you to dig into random generic caves and graves to trudge through a bunch of enemies to kill a moderately annoying boss to get an achievement and the skyshard that is almost invariably located behind him. The crafting system is better than it used to be, but still painstaking as it is difficult to notice gathering nodes sometimes (ore in particular blends in too well with the ground).

Also another aggravating thing is that they recycle this "group X is killing town Y to raise their dead corpses for an army" story-line in multiple zones in each faction.

I should really sit down and make a write up on it because the game is just, riddled with sub-par design. I try to check back every time their is a big update and see if they make improvements (they haven't really), but I can't even bring myself to play it for free and I haven't even played that many hours of it(compared to what I normally dump into MMO's)

#4 Posted by Stonyman65 (2678 posts) -

It looks like the same MMO thing over and over again. Everyone that I have talked to who messed around with the beta, and all of the videos I've seen (AngryJoe's video is great) seems to be like "this is fucking boring" and "a low-budget Elder Scrolls but without all of the interesting stuff".

#5 Posted by subyman (605 posts) -

I came into the game really skeptical, but my two beta weekends have been vastly different. The first weekend, I didn't care for it at all. I barely played to level 5 and then quit. I decided to give it another shot and came to the game with a different perspective this time. I didn't try to blast through the levels like I do in WoW without reading any of the quests and zooming straight to the objectives. Instead, I explored, gathered materials, listened to all the quest dialog, crafted my own gear, and soaked in the great looking world they created. I've had a MUCH more enjoyable time. It isn't supposed to be like MMO x, y, or z. It brings with it the slow burn of the Elder Scrolls games.

I think there are plenty of things that need to be addressed such grouping and class roles. I also think there is a lot to like as long as you approach the game differently than every other MMO out there. I'll probably enjoy my cruise to the max level and do a bit of end game with friends and see where it goes from there.

#6 Posted by ViciousBearMauling (1030 posts) -

If this is anything to go by.... I played one beta weekend, I keep getting re-invited to test the game again, and I keep deleting the email. This is the next SWTOR, it might take even less time to go F2P.

This is WoW with a clunky First Person mode

#8 Posted by ripelivejam (3810 posts) -

why couldn't they have just done a co-op elder scrolls game with like four or five people only running amok/wreaking havoc in the world? maybe too close to a first-person ARPG if they did, but i think it would work much better and have more appeal. or something more asynchronous where one person's doings affect the quests in a different part of the world, or he/she becomes the big baddie you have to take down or something. would just be neat to see the push-pull of multiple people in a mostly AI-run world, but not a horde of players so it just becomes your typical mmmmo.

i'll reserve judgement, though i'm not really an MMO guy in the first place.

#9 Posted by big_jon (5723 posts) -

Every video I have seen of gameplay from that game has looked horrid.

#10 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@vuud said:

Well, it is another fantasy MMO. The basic formula has gone unchanged for 15+ years or however long its been since Everquest.

Hence everybody is waiting for Everquest Next, which is poised to set the standards for another 15 years. That's assuming meshing Minecraft and MMORPG is really the future. Obviously, it is!

P.S. I think ESO looks actually pretty neat.

#11 Posted by Bollard (5441 posts) -

Hopefully Bethesda will realise multiplayer and Elder Scrolls do not go together in time for ES6.

#12 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

I had no idea Everquest Next was poised to be that great. I haven't read up on it though. I'm probably colored by the utter crap MMOs I've allowed myself to play in the past, but they rarely turn out the way people hope they do.

#13 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@funkydupe said:

I had no idea Everquest Next was poised to be that great. I haven't read up on it though. I'm probably colored by the utter crap MMOs I've allowed myself to play in the past, but they rarely turn out the way people hope they do.

MMOs tend to disappoint, it's true. The massive expectations they're bound to incite with their scale and scope and often ambition are rarely ever met.

However, I think Everquest Next is on the right track by meshing the player-driven creativity of a Minecraft with a proper MMO. It's two games really. One is Everquest Next: Landmark, which is a straight-up Minecraft-alike freeform sandbox, whilst Everquest Next proper is the MMO, with all the trappings and systems and mechanics, like quests and such.

I'm not exactly sure how Landmark will feed into Everquest Next, and what creative limitations are placed on players to preserve the game's cohesion, but all-in-all I totally believe that Minecraft's DNA is what will be the hallmark of the next generation of MMOs, and Everquest Next is the pioneer of this new school of MMOs.

Everquest Next is the death knell to the themepark MMO. That's not to say it's necessarily going to be *The Next World of Warcraft*, just that its core template will serve yet again as the basis for every major MMO in the near future. I'd not be surprised if Blizzard's project Titan will pretty much be whatever Everquest Next will turn out to be, just elegantly simplified and reduced to what about it works best - and that'll be the next big mass phenomenon in the genre.

Anyways, I'll just embed a video of its unveil event, in case you've not yet had your imagination jolted by their pitch...

And here some Landmark...

#14 Posted by gaminghooligan (1436 posts) -

I'll wait for it to go free to play. Wonder how long it takes....

#15 Edited by TheHBK (5474 posts) -

This it he problem I see. Most of the comments here, save for yours, @subyman, all show me that most people are going into this game just like any other MMO. I want to know, does this game give you that feeling of history and varied culture that the other games in the ES series give you? Will these side quests that you find every where like in ES be quirky or a simple fetch quest turns into a damn mission unexpectedly? And where is the talk about the gameplay that matters? You pull out talking about damage characters and threat and all this shit I don't know what it means. Why because I don't play MMOs. So I want to know is the game giving me the quests and I can do them the way I want without falling into the standard MMO strategy pit because that is what makes other games in the MMO space so similar to each other that that is fucking stupid. I keep reading that everyone is waiting for an MMO to shake it up because SWTOR came out and played the same as all other MMOs yet this gets analyzed with the same tropes and expectations that it should play like SWTOR or WOW.

So maybe this game sucks. I love the ES but at least talk about the combat, the quest progression because I can't tell if I would like this game. It only says to me, "hey if you are way into WOW and other MMOs, then don't play this!"

#16 Edited by soulcake (268 posts) -

A MMO made 7 years ago feels like a game from 7 years ago.

#17 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@thehbk said:

This it he problem I see. Most of the comments here, save for yours, @subyman, all show me that most people are going into this game just like any other MMO. I want to know, does this game give you that feeling of history and varied culture that the other games in the ES series give you? Will these side quests that you find every where like in ES be quirky or a simple fetch quest turns into a damn mission unexpectedly? And where is the talk about the gameplay that matters? You pull out talking about damage characters and threat and all this shit I don't know what it means. Why because I don't play MMOs. So I want to know is the game giving me the quests and I can do them the way I want without falling into the standard MMO strategy pit because that is what makes other games in the MMO space so similar to each other that that is fucking stupid. I keep reading that everyone is waiting for an MMO to shake it up because SWTOR came out and played the same as all other MMOs yet this gets analyzed with the same tropes and expectations that it should play like SWTOR or WOW.

So maybe this game sucks. I love the ES but at least talk about the combat, the quest progression because I can't tell if I would like this game. It only says to me, "hey if you are way into WOW and other MMOs, then don't play this!"

Pretty much every preview says that it's more Elder Scrolls than MMO, but also that it's not quite enough Elder Scrolls. The press NDA has been lifted for the first 15 levels and early-game areas. You should easily be able to form your own opinion based upon what's out there now.

Apparently combat feels more floaty and less physical, like you can just clip through enemies. It's pretty much a standard lock-on MMO with pretentions of being an Elder Scrolls game, as far as I can tell from the videos and previews. You aim actively, but beneath the pretention of it, it's still the same simplistic MMO-style hitboxes without any simulation going on whatsoever - albeit the illusion comes pretty close in first person perspective.

The game puts up a valiant effort to be an Elder Scroll's game. With books to read. Chests to lock-pick. Et all. Just, you know, it's like a few chests and books versus every damn book and chest in Skyrim. The drawback of being an MMO is that it's a lesser Elder Scrolls game in every regard, except scale and scope. Less dense. Less consequential. Less physical.

Apparently the questlines are well written and varied, albeit pretty much all choices you make don't have any longlasting ramifications. Obviously you can't have too much of an impact in a classic themepark MMO.

It's really up to the player if it's enough of an Elder Scrolls game or not. From what I've seen and heard of it in recent previews, it just might be Elder Scrolls enough for me to check it out. That said, my growing lust for another MMO-binge might just color my glasses a little rosy.

#18 Edited by Random45 (1141 posts) -

I was watching my friend play this game, and it really just looks dull. It just looks like a very bland and typical fantasy MMO, just with a big name attached to it.

Edit: I just asked my friend for his impression of the game, and he had this to say:

"It would be fun with friends, but it's kind of boring by yourself. There's a LOT of dialogue in quests, so if you're into the lore, you'd probably really like them. However, as far as the quest objectives go, most of them are 'MMOy', fetch quests, kill quests, talk to this guy, etc."

#19 Posted by Ares42 (2625 posts) -

@seppli: From my experience the problem isn't that it's more one or the other, it's that they seem to have randomly picked aspects of both without thinking about how they go together. You can play it either way if you want, and you'll find what you're looking for, but there will also be things that seem really strange. And if you try to look at the whole package it just doesn't work. I can't really think of any good examples but it's sorta like if Borderlands only had 5 weapons that you found better versions of over and over, it would've just been a failed merge of the 2 genres.

#20 Posted by Dagbiker (6972 posts) -

@seppli said:

@vuud said:

Well, it is another fantasy MMO. The basic formula has gone unchanged for 15+ years or however long its been since Everquest.

Hence everybody is waiting for Everquest Next, which is poised to set the standards for another 15 years. That's assuming meshing Minecraft and MMORPG are really the future. Obviously, it is!

P.S. I think ESO looks actually pretty neat.

Its funny I have been playing Online games with these ''Standards'' far before Everquest, see Ultima Online, or even Muds. And honestly, Guild wars 2 is a great MMO, its pretty much just WoW, but it basicly has a free expansion every month. and there is no monthly fee. I guess, for me you dont have to reinvent a mouse trap. Because a mouse trap is preety damn good. The problem is dont sell me a mouse trap, then try to sell me another as a better, grater mouse trap, when last years model will work just as well. At the very least make me want that mouse trap, paint it a pretty color, or make an alarm so i know when there is a mouse in it or something.

Right now ESO looks like the same World of warcraft model mouse trap i bought 15 years ago, It looks like a worse Guild wars 2 mouse trap i already own. And it looks like it works worse then all of them.

#21 Posted by tourgen (4475 posts) -

To be honest a game without a dedicated threat management class is a good move. It opens up many possibilities in encounter designs. It also puts more responsibility on each participant in an encounter which is just better design. Tank + Healer is some old ass tired 80s-90s D&D nerd nonsense that needs to die. It's comfortable for many older gamers because it's what they've always done. Hanging on to it and not giving newer, better game designs a chance is holding everyone back.

#22 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@dagbiker said:

@seppli said:

@vuud said:

Well, it is another fantasy MMO. The basic formula has gone unchanged for 15+ years or however long its been since Everquest.

Hence everybody is waiting for Everquest Next, which is poised to set the standards for another 15 years. That's assuming meshing Minecraft and MMORPG are really the future. Obviously, it is!

P.S. I think ESO looks actually pretty neat.

Its funny I have been playing Online games with these ''Standards'' far before Everquest, see Ultima Online, or even Muds. And honestly, Guild wars 2 is a great MMO, its pretty much just WoW, but it basicly has a free expansion every month. and there is no monthly fee. I guess, for me you dont have to reinvent a mouse trap. Because a mouse trap is preety damn good. The problem is dont sell me a mouse trap, then try to sell me another as a better, grater mouse trap, when last years model will work just as well. At the very least make me want that mouse trap, paint it a pretty color, or make an alarm so i know when there is a mouse in it or something.

Right now ESO looks like the same World of warcraft model mouse trap i bought 15 years ago, It looks like a worse Guild wars 2 mouse trap i already own. And it looks like it works worse then all of them.

Sure, in a way Everquest Next is a return to old values. To what MMOs were supposed to be before WoW came along. It's just its kind of interactivity hasn't been technically possible in the fidelity that we'd expect, and the market wasn't ready to embrace it yet. Or at least it didn't seem like a viable business at the time.

Now that Minecraft has proven the mass appeal of *Player-driven, Player-created* worlds, and the themepark MMO has lost a lot of steam, and mass market hardware has reached a sufficient level of prowess - all the stars have aligned to finally push the genre forward along its intended path. Or at least that's how I am seeing it.

I don't think ESO has legs beyond its release either. Not in this climate. Not with a monthly fee. Not with how it's shaping up. That said, I totally see a window for ESO in April. I might just put down the cash for the client and a gametime card and level a character and see what it's all about.

Sometimes it doesn't have to be the greatest mouse trap ever. Sometimes it just has to be new and shiny. And who knows, I might end up liking it far more than I suspect. Playing it in First Person Perspective like a classic Elder Scrolls game sure looks enticing to me. For a little while at the very least.

#23 Edited by subyman (605 posts) -

@thehbk: People talk of the bad combat in ESO, but I think its actually more involved than Skyrim's. In Skyrim you swing your sword, block, or shoot arrows. The magic in Skyrim wasn't much. In ESO, you dodge, block, interrupt, and swing on top of five skills and an ultimate ability. You have to actively keep your reticle over the enemy and the hit boxes have been tightened since previous betas (you were able to hit dudes aiming well off of their model in the previous betas.) Skyrim is an awesome game, but ES has never been known for its deep combat.

As for people that say it is a WoW combat clone, I highly doubt they have played the game at all. You don't lock on and run around the target while mashing 20+ hotkeys. You can physically move outside the enemy's swing and actively block. So far, I think its done well for an MMO. I think they can definitely improve the combat to make it more impactful, but it is much different than the run of the mill MMO.

As for questing and the world, the quests are obtained more organically than other MMOs with quest givers running up to you like Skyrim and the player happening upon events while exploring. I haven't gotten super far in the game, but the quest dialog is okay and the quests are varied. I actually haven't had any quests that I can recall that are simply "kill x" amount of enemies because they need boar meat. There are usually other mechanics involved such as stealing their souls, but each quest is typically very quick and a part of a large quest line that moves at a decent pace. They at least attempt to keep the traditional MMO quest mechanics hidden behind story elements.

The best part is the world though. A lot of people call it "generic", but it's actually more whimsical than Skyrim's art, so if you liked that I think you would like the ESO world. There are a lot of varied environments and the world looks much more like a AAA game instead of a MMO world due to the high amount of detail on everything. It is a refreshing change from the typical anime style or WoW style graphics that almost every other MMO uses. There are a lot of books and lore sitting around if you are into that. I've seen tons of books that are all different, so its not like you get the same book over and over.

Anyway, I stick to my original opinion. If you are approaching the game in an objective/level based way like how WoW was made, then this game is probably boring because without the dialog and exploration its just another grind to max level. Except this game is paced more like an ES game, so it'll be slower. If you approach it as a world to explore and take in, then I think you will like ESO. It's a nice change from the frantic loot progression of the typical MMO.

#24 Edited by geirr (2532 posts) -

I found ESO to be bleak and mostly boring in the three betas I played. Also them locking the imperial race behind special edition pre-order is really weird since, in my mind, Elder Scrolls shouldn't be "that kind of game." You should be able to pick your race, join whatever faction you want (currently the races are stuck with a pre-set faction depending on your racial choice) and tackle the world however you feel like it.

#25 Posted by TheHBK (5474 posts) -

@geirr said:

I found ESO to be bleak and mostly boring in the three betas I played. Also them locking the imperial race behind special edition pre-order is really weird since, in my mind, Elder Scrolls shouldn't be "that kind of game." You should be able to pick your race, join whatever faction you want (currently the races are stuck with a pre-set faction depending on your racial choice) and tackle the world however you feel like it.

I think this is more of a gameplay choice since it is an MMO, you want to be able to quickly distinguish who is friend or foe and have a sense of community and not in terms of people playing but the world. I sure as hell don't want to team up with Elves or the lizard people. There is a more tangible separation of factions. There are deeply held racial lines in the ES games and for me it felt weird you could be an Orc and hated by humans but become their champion.

#26 Posted by Reisz (1483 posts) -
@tourgen said:

To be honest a game without a dedicated threat management class is a good move. It opens up many possibilities in encounter designs. It also puts more responsibility on each participant in an encounter which is just better design. Tank + Healer is some old ass tired 80s-90s D&D nerd nonsense that needs to die. It's comfortable for many older gamers because it's what they've always done. Hanging on to it and not giving newer, better game designs a chance is holding everyone back.

Yep, I'm with you. I almost can't believe it but that Massively preview makes me more interested in the game.

#27 Posted by Excast (911 posts) -

I was kind of surprised by how dated everything looked. I mean, I would say Oblivion looked just as good, if not better. The combat also seems rather boring and limited. The way they created the difference alliances seemed rather arbitrary as well.

#28 Edited by ThatOneDudeNick (553 posts) -

This time next year we'll be seeing a F2P announcement. I've been playing MMORPGs for a long time. I've never paid $60 up front for one. If they feel they have something compelling and addictive, the cost of entry should be lower. Sell it for $30, and they'll get $15 a month out of me when I become addicted. Even drug dealers hook you up the first time (if their drugs are of a good quality), because they know you'll come back when you inevitable want more. What's the endgame of ESO look like if they're unwilling to even let you try it for less than $60? An MMO makes it's profit over time. The price indicates to me that the endgame content is weak and they are worried about retention rates. You can have my $60 or a sub fee. Not both.

That being said, I enjoy ESO. Quite a bit, actually. Anyone expecting a great Elder Scrolls game or a groundbreaking new MMO experience will be disappointed. I've been having fun with it, but I went in with zero hype and no expectations. It's fine as a game. But there's no reason to quit your current MMO of choice.

I was at the Everquest Next reveal. That looks super interesting, and their goals seem ambitious. Who knows how it will turn out, but I'm willing to bet it still plays similar to every other MMO. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I enjoy most other MMOs). Just like people have different preferences for which floating gun game they prefer, people have their preference for which skin to put over their quest markers. ESO isn't changing the game, but it's not doing anything wrong as a game, either (for me personally). It's no better or worse than anything else. The problem is, people are already playing that something else.

#29 Posted by EXTomar (4687 posts) -

What is there to say? They are releasing a 2008 MMO when it is 2014 which is the same thing SWTOR tried and "flopped". We have seen that a popular and well known IP can spur people to buy into MMO games but longevity is from the design and no one is showing that ESO has any of that.

#30 Edited by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -

@reisz said:
@tourgen said:

To be honest a game without a dedicated threat management class is a good move. It opens up many possibilities in encounter designs. It also puts more responsibility on each participant in an encounter which is just better design. Tank + Healer is some old ass tired 80s-90s D&D nerd nonsense that needs to die. It's comfortable for many older gamers because it's what they've always done. Hanging on to it and not giving newer, better game designs a chance is holding everyone back.

Yep, I'm with you. I almost can't believe it but that Massively preview makes me more interested in the game.

MMOs have been promising to get rid of the Tank/Healer/Dps trinity for a while now, it's nothing new at this point. The last new biggest MMO entry that tried it was Guildwars 2 and all we got was a wet fart noise on that promise. It made starting dungeons a clusterfuck and in the end people still needed to specialize to tank and heal roles regardless.

There are reasons the trinity design works and why it's so hard to actually get rid of (rather then just promise to do so). Specialization and efficiency. Which the majority of MMO players pursue by default.

Funnily enough D&D is a good example of not relying on the holy trinity of tank/healer/dps. There is no threat management, you manage enemies with magic or positioning, the healing is very limited in power and finite, damage mitigation is not exclusive to warriors and their equivalents but is rather spread out in different forms across a multitude of classes in various forms, and so is the dps potential which mostly depends on the encounters with various classes excelling in certain situations.

#31 Posted by crithon (3138 posts) -

I'm not surprised at all with what I just read.

#32 Posted by MrWakka (99 posts) -

@reisz said:
@tourgen said:

To be honest a game without a dedicated threat management class is a good move. It opens up many possibilities in encounter designs. It also puts more responsibility on each participant in an encounter which is just better design. Tank + Healer is some old ass tired 80s-90s D&D nerd nonsense that needs to die. It's comfortable for many older gamers because it's what they've always done. Hanging on to it and not giving newer, better game designs a chance is holding everyone back.

Yep, I'm with you. I almost can't believe it but that Massively preview makes me more interested in the game.

MMOs have been promising to get rid of the Tank/Healer/Dps trinity for a while now, it's nothing new at this point. The last new biggest MMO entry that tried it was Guildwars 2 and all we got was a wet fart noise on that promise. It made starting dungeons a clusterfuck and in the end people still needed to specialize to tank and heal roles regardless.

There are reasons the trinity design works and why it's so hard to actually get rid of (rather then just promise to do so). Specialization and efficiency. Which the majority of MMO players pursue by default.

Funnily enough D&D is a good example of not relying on the holy trinity of tank/healer/dps. There is no threat management, you manage enemies with magic or positioning, the healing is very limited in power and finite, damage mitigation is not exclusive to warriors and their equivalents but is rather spread out in different forms across a multitude of classes in various forms, and so is the dps potential which mostly depends on the encounters with various classes excelling in certain situations.

Yeah, the idea that the trinity comes from d&d or tabletop role playing games in general is wrong by a wide margin. I think getting rid of the trinity is a good idea, but unlike in d&d where you can control the battlefield through spells, summons, reach, AoO, etc, its much more difficult to pull that kind of stuff off in real time, which is why we have tanks. They had to dumb down battlefield control to one guy generating threat instead of actual tactics.
.

#33 Edited by GERALTITUDE (3229 posts) -

I'm very curious to see what this game is like.

Feel a little 50/50 on the name of the game, though I'm not sure what else they would have called it. Generally speaking I don't get the feeling that my friends who played Skyrim and/or Oblivion know that's part of Elder Scrolls, crazy as that sounds. Like if you asked them while they were playing it they'd say Oh sure but ask years later, "hey man, wasn't ESV great?" and they'd say "I never played it". Kind of like watching Game of Thrones but having never heard of A Song of Ice & Fire.

#34 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3229 posts) -

@mrwakka: where does the Trinity come from if not D&D?

Not being an ass I'm actually really curious as I just started learning D&D. I'm down for an education if you're willing to share duder.

#35 Edited by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -

@geraltitude: I wouldn't say it came from anywhere in particular per se. The trinity pretty much evolved over time along with MMOs as a necessity for managing and scaling up group content/combat, in real time; and thousands of people min-maxing game mechanics. Even traditional cRPGs did not rely on it because a lot of them had their roots and inspirations in D&D like systems in the first place. It got kind of chiseled in stone with WoW, because Blizzard do what Blizzard does and refined/polished the shit out of a concept into a well oiled machine, then people ran it through it's paces and they refined it even more, and so on.

That's not to say that there have not been games that might not have used it earlier, but at least from observation MMOs were the prime breeding ground.

Ironically the later D&D editions past 3.5 started to take a page from video games and MMOs in particular in streamlining their mechanics.

#36 Posted by Vashyron (199 posts) -

My problem with ESO, playing the beta over the weekend, is that I always felt like "Ya know. I'd really rather play Skyrim."