Why is this an MMO, again? So it'll be like SWTOR but with no companions, basically the only thing that made the story bare able? These MMO developers don't get it. We don't want shitty  single player stories in an MMO, We want HUGE, player run worlds, where you have constant interaction like in EVE. Everything is open, everything is player run, it's an actual world.
 

The main story in The Elder Scrolls Online will be "100 per cent solo" so that you feel like "you're awesome, you're the hero", game director Matt Firor has revealed.
"The part of the IP we worked with the most to ensure it was the closest we could get it in an MMO to what it would be to a console, solo game, was, I'm a hero," he told GameInformer in a video interview.

"In the Elder Scrolls games you're always the hero, whether you want to be or not. You go out there and you kill the dragons; You kill Mehrunes Dagon in Oblivion; in Morrowind, you're up there fighting the Tribunal - those are huge, global, epic things that you don't want to stand in line to do in an MMO. The last thing you want to do is have the final confrontation with Mehrunes Dagon as he's stomping across the Imperial City, and you see like 15 guys behind you waiting to kill him because they're on the same quest.

"As MMO online designers, the thing we wanted to make sure we hit the most was that feeling that you're awesome, you're the hero. And we do that through a mix of technology, where when I am confronting a major foe in the game, I'm doing it in an instance where I am alone.

"And we have a whole part of the game that is 100 per cent solo," he said, "which is the main story, where the world focuses on you - you are the hero, everything you do is solo and the world reacts to you that way."

I'm going to wait until I actually see the game before yelling at everything.

It sounds like they'd rather be making TES VI.

Also, technically you never "kill" any Daedra, so maybe in this context "kill" would be considered analogous to "sending back to Oblivion", which you do to Mehrunes Dagon. Yeah I know I'm grasping at straws here.

@CL60 said:

I'm going to wait until I actually see the game before yelling at everything.

That kind of crazy-talk don't belong on the Internet mate.

Worked for Diablo. 

Sweet! A single player RPG with a multi-player component and a $15 a month sub! Sign me up. Those crazy folks at ArenaNet almost got my money for an open world MMO that was box-price only. They already got my money for Guild Wars 1 which was box-price only and no sub and you could play it solo or with friends. I am starting to think that most game companies need to pucker up and kiss the contents of my wallet goodbye.

I agree. I don't want a singe player campaign I play alongside lots of other people also playing the same campaign (EVERYONE IS THE CHOSEN ONE), I want a skeleton setup in place that allows me and lots of other people to develop a society along certain broad fantasy guidelines.

It sounds like they're repeating one of TOR's biggest mistakes, by isolating the single player from the multiplayer stuff. I'm all for making MMO's enjoyable for solo players or small groups, but if everything's going to be so disjointed, what's the point? I'd rather be playing a single player game without a monthly fee in this case.

After seeing this done in WoW & other MMOs of trying to make the player feel like they are the sole hero until the person playing realizes that the group of 5 rogues/warlocks over by the inn went through the same heroic things if not more than you then that idea get's thrown out the window. Agreed with others on the site, make this game a 4 player co-op similar to the original Guild Wars where the towns are hubs for people to meet up then the 4 player group can go have fun out in the wild without interacting with anyone else (only your party was visible outside the towns except in certain areas). I actually think it'd work better for this than make it yet another WoW with cat people.

I'm going to wait until I actually see the game before yelling at everything.

I feel like every single thing that is said about this game actively increases my disinterest in ever wanting to know about the final product. Nothing about MMOs really mechanically appeals to me, so the idea of having to do that alone sounds even more dull.

The point of an MMO is the multiplayer. Alot of players solo because the multiplayer aspect sucks.

Guild Wars was very good in this regard.

It's sounding more and more like a palette swapped SW:TOR to me. If they want to sell me a single player MMO, sell it Guild Wars style or don't sell it at all.

.... They seem really desperate into making fans of the TES games get into this online game. I don't know how letting everyone defeat the final boss would make you any awesome... everyone raided the hell outta his dungeon before anyways.

But I don't want to be the hero!

I'll always be the one and only Hero of Kvatch!

@AndrewB: But...I was told that I was the hero!

@Cloudenvy said:

@AndrewB: But...I was told that I was the hero!

What? No way... I don't remember you being there. Unless you were that one guy who took too many scamp fireballs and died in front of the bridge. But I don't think you'd be called a hero then, so...

But if you are, thanks for the armor!

@FreakAche said:

It sounds like they'd rather be making TES VI.

Also, technically you never "kill" any Daedra, so maybe in this context "kill" would be considered analogous to "sending back to Oblivion", which you do to Mehrunes Dagon. Yeah I know I'm grasping at straws here.

As I recall the Prince transforms into a golden dragon and sends Dagon back to Oblivion, so by any definition your character doesn't "kill" Mehrunes Dagon. That's actually something that REALLY bugged me in Oblivion.

@AndrewB: I was the man secretly helping you in the shadows on your entire journey. I was the real hero!

Not even one word of thanks?

If you "killed" the Daedric lords, then who would you battle for and against in later Elder Scrolls games?
 
edit: And the term "MMO" doesn't really mean anything nowadays. It used to imply that there would be hundreds or even thousands of other players in the same world as you at the same time. But with the over misuse of the term, it merely means "always online game with multiplayer content" nowadays. I don't think you can make a single assumption about a game that uses that term, aside from being unable to play it offline. If Blizzard wasn't running WoW (an actual MMO), I'm certain even they would call Diablo 3 one.

@Cloudenvy: If it was a secret, why were they calling you the hero of Kvatch?

Or are you confusing it with that time I left the vault and entered the wastelands and this stranger kept randomly appearing to fire off 5 rounds at whatever I was aiming at?

I'm sure the combat will still be terrible. Not interested in this at all.

So why play it? If I'm going to spend fifteen smackers a month to play a multiplayer game, by God I'm going to play it with other motherfuckers!

I am not, by the way, going to spend fifteen anything a month to play an MMO. I tried WoW and fuck, that was boring.

@AndrewB: That would be me.

Alright guys, it's 3AM, fuck this shit. I'm going to sleep. I hate video games.

Ugh.

Oh jeez if they want the TES 'MMO' to feel 100% solo then why didn't they just make a single player game with multiplayer that allows you to invite friends to fight alongside you, that would've been much better since TES never really had that instead of jumping into the deep end of the MMO pool.

@Cold_Wolven said:

Oh jeez if they want the TES 'MMO' to feel 100% solo then why didn't they just make a single player game with multiplayer that allows you to invite friends to fight alongside you, that would've been much better since TES never really had that instead of jumping into the deep end of the MMO pool.

Because they were going to develop a single player game already and this way they get to charge 15$ a month to every user.

Some people are way into soloing stuff like that. I am, and then I'm down with being in big group events. I just keep both separate.