Originally posted by iamrtaAA is more like ES than ESO is? What are you, five? That doesn't even make sense.
Actually it does make sense, ESO does not play like an Elder Scrolls game, its a Themepark MMO sure, and it has some of the naming conventions etc usually associated with Elder Scrolls, but thats where it ends. The trouble is, is that by drawing a comparison with Skyrim, or any other Elder Scrolls game, and pointing out how ESO doesn't capture the spirit even of Elder Scrolls, they try to draw comparisons to Archeage because it has a few game features normally associated with Sandbox games - its a Themepark at heart however, but that isn't really the issue, Archeage no more captures the Elder Scrolls spirit than ESO does, less so even.
And just what is the Elder Scrolls spirit?
Because what Elder Scrolls is to me is almost the exact opposite of what ArcheAge is.
What I mostly took away from the article is that your memorable experience in Skyrim was not designed by the developers, it was an accident as far as they are concerned. It was emergent. This is a trend I've seen for a long time.
Every single good MMO(or series of singleplayer games) I've played has been this way since the 90s. What made a game good was usually not by design, it was an accident. Almost everytime the developers would fail to realize what aspects they got right and would alter the game down the line and ruin the experience.
Beta/Early UO, EQ1, SWG, DF1, are high on my list of those examples. In every case there was an option to expand in more than one direction, and in every case things went the themepark route and apparently hadn't even imagined the alternatives.
It's gotten to the point where I can watch a developer show off their game and listen to them talk about features and goals that it is no longer necessary to even try these games to know what they're going to offer. The same patterns of thinking and features keep showing up over and over again. I predicted how SWTOR was going to end up without ever touching it. Knew exactly what was TESO going to offer. AA is still a themepark ultimately, can't say how long sandbox features will keep it floating.
What's the mistake?
They're all steering you like cattle towards specific goals/playstyles and telling you a story hopefully long enough for them to put out a fresh story by the time you get bored with playing the previous story over and over. You're being told a story that you're not a part of, that you have no meaningful impact on. There's no room for you to screw up the story and shift it's course. No chaos or anything that doesn't follow a set predictable pattern. You've got training wheels on to protect the story and prevent you from having meaningful failure, achievement or any sense of permanence.
Having in-game "achievements" is a placebo that rewards you for doing the same thing as everyone else. There is no individual because everyone is pigeonholed by design into being the same.
I believe it was a Witcher 3 developer that called Skyrim generic, and he was right in a way, by design it is. But it still has a little room for things that weren't intended. I suspect I might come to think of the Witcher 3 as generic too, depending on what kind of freedom it offers. After all, it has a narrative to stick to, a main story.
That's one part of the problem. The focus on narrative in MMOs. When the focus should be on the elements that make up narratives, not the narrative itself. That's where all the crafted detail is right now, in the voice acting and pre-scripted narrative. The gameplay and reward systems are cookie cutter. The options are generic. The only thing unique is the setting(vaguely) and narrative.
This article is supposed to be about TESO and AA, I don't see it that way. The underlying issue is a themepark one. IMO no has gotten Sandbox right yet either. I've seen themepark games that had superior sandbox elements to some sandbox games and vice versa. Several self proclaimed sandbox games these days are just PvP focused with nothing else. That's not a sandbox either.
The solutions are deceptively simple, yet more complex to implement and for whatever reason elude the imaginations of many developers.
Spot on re: ESO. I haven't played AA but I feel your take on ESO is similar to mine. Games aren't perfect and to an extent you have to suspend disbelief to enjoy them. Feeling heroic or accomplishing something tough has always been the draw for me.
Originally posted by XodrocThis article is supposed to be about TESO and AA, I don't see it that way. The underlying issue is a themepark one. IMO no has gotten Sandbox right yet either. I've seen themepark games that had superior sandbox elements to some sandbox games and vice versa. Several self proclaimed sandbox games these days are just PvP focused with nothing else. That's not a sandbox either.
Elder Scrolls isn't sandbox though. Its more along the lines of what EQ was, here is a world for you to explore with inhabitants to interact with, go make your own adventure.
Where AA is different from this is that in AA the focus isn't on having an interesting world with interesting inhabitants, the focus is more on the players making the world more interesting. And I don't think AA really has given us the tools to make that work (SWG at least was on the right track)
Had similar experience with Lydia but after continuing the game without her for a while decided I could not live without her and went back a chunk of the game to a point where she was still alive and continued from there.
Comments
And just what is the Elder Scrolls spirit?
Because what Elder Scrolls is to me is almost the exact opposite of what ArcheAge is.
What I mostly took away from the article is that your memorable experience in Skyrim was not designed by the developers, it was an accident as far as they are concerned. It was emergent. This is a trend I've seen for a long time.
Every single good MMO(or series of singleplayer games) I've played has been this way since the 90s. What made a game good was usually not by design, it was an accident. Almost everytime the developers would fail to realize what aspects they got right and would alter the game down the line and ruin the experience.
Beta/Early UO, EQ1, SWG, DF1, are high on my list of those examples. In every case there was an option to expand in more than one direction, and in every case things went the themepark route and apparently hadn't even imagined the alternatives.
It's gotten to the point where I can watch a developer show off their game and listen to them talk about features and goals that it is no longer necessary to even try these games to know what they're going to offer. The same patterns of thinking and features keep showing up over and over again. I predicted how SWTOR was going to end up without ever touching it. Knew exactly what was TESO going to offer. AA is still a themepark ultimately, can't say how long sandbox features will keep it floating.
What's the mistake?
They're all steering you like cattle towards specific goals/playstyles and telling you a story hopefully long enough for them to put out a fresh story by the time you get bored with playing the previous story over and over. You're being told a story that you're not a part of, that you have no meaningful impact on. There's no room for you to screw up the story and shift it's course. No chaos or anything that doesn't follow a set predictable pattern. You've got training wheels on to protect the story and prevent you from having meaningful failure, achievement or any sense of permanence.
Having in-game "achievements" is a placebo that rewards you for doing the same thing as everyone else. There is no individual because everyone is pigeonholed by design into being the same.
I believe it was a Witcher 3 developer that called Skyrim generic, and he was right in a way, by design it is. But it still has a little room for things that weren't intended. I suspect I might come to think of the Witcher 3 as generic too, depending on what kind of freedom it offers. After all, it has a narrative to stick to, a main story.
That's one part of the problem. The focus on narrative in MMOs. When the focus should be on the elements that make up narratives, not the narrative itself. That's where all the crafted detail is right now, in the voice acting and pre-scripted narrative. The gameplay and reward systems are cookie cutter. The options are generic. The only thing unique is the setting(vaguely) and narrative.
This article is supposed to be about TESO and AA, I don't see it that way. The underlying issue is a themepark one. IMO no has gotten Sandbox right yet either. I've seen themepark games that had superior sandbox elements to some sandbox games and vice versa. Several self proclaimed sandbox games these days are just PvP focused with nothing else. That's not a sandbox either.
The solutions are deceptively simple, yet more complex to implement and for whatever reason elude the imaginations of many developers.
-Xod
Blah
Spot on re: ESO. I haven't played AA but I feel your take on ESO is similar to mine. Games aren't perfect and to an extent you have to suspend disbelief to enjoy them. Feeling heroic or accomplishing something tough has always been the draw for me.
As to AA, I'll reserve comment until I play it
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Elder Scrolls isn't sandbox though. Its more along the lines of what EQ was, here is a world for you to explore with inhabitants to interact with, go make your own adventure.
Where AA is different from this is that in AA the focus isn't on having an interesting world with interesting inhabitants, the focus is more on the players making the world more interesting. And I don't think AA really has given us the tools to make that work (SWG at least was on the right track)
Had similar experience with Lydia but after continuing the game without her for a while decided I could not live without her and went back a chunk of the game to a point where she was still alive and continued from there.