This website has significant power and with great power comes great responsibility. (MMO Related).

Prescience

The MMORPG genre is arguably in decline with a few hopeful titles on the horizon. These titles could revive the genre by breathing much needed life back into it. This website has become the bastion of MMORPG news. It is the first place we the players go to find new games, read about current ones, and watch video reviews. In the past year or so a host of articles have flooded the main page of MMORPG.com that, by most accounts, seem to be biased. What the writers and reviewers on MMORPG.com say and do has a huge impact on the genre at large. 

It would seem that this website now possesses the power to dissuade the reader from ever trying a game or encourage them to try a different one due to bias or heavily opinionated reviews that seem to turn the tides of the genre. The sponsoring of certain article also has the potential to pollute the mind of the reader and I don't agree with turning this into MMORPG nascar(speaking on sponsors). 

I will be the first to say I love this site but I do believe there needs to be a larger emphasis on remaining unbiased and allowing the reader to formulate their own opinion before a game is inadvertently "damned." We put a lot of faith in this site to steer us in the right direction but MMORPG.com should be careful not to reshape the entire genre with its articles. 

Use your power for good.

OhhPaigey

I see where you're coming from, but the paid articles are tagged as such.

I guess it's just me, but I'm extremely stubborn and if I wanna play something I'll play it whether everyone says it's bad or not, I've found a lot of hidden gems a lot of people consider garbage lol.

Prescience

OhhPaigey said:

I see where you're coming from, but the paid articles are tagged as such.

I guess it's just me, but I'm extremely stubborn and if I wanna play something I'll play it whether everyone says it's bad or not, I've found a lot of hidden gems a lot of people consider garbage lol.

I do agree that the sponsored articles are tagged properly but I am speaking about non sponsored content as well.

I am glad you keep an open mind but not all of us do and put a large amount of faith in this site and its writers. Which isn't a bad thing it just needs to be realized.

Scorchien

Sorry man , but a person would have to be some serious low hanging fruit to picked by this site or any other and be influenced so easily ..I would like to think most folks are smarter than that and take the intiative to research any game they are interested in a bit more than make there decision based on  one sites  Opinion ...

Albatroes

I'm guessing this thread was made in response to some of the Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2 articles that were made last year. They were kind of questionable.

Prescience

Xodic said:

A review without opinions?
Writing a review that isn't opinionated is basically writing a feature list.
Which you can go to the games website for that that information.

There's a difference between opinion and bias.

frostymug

I'm just here for the forums. I choose my own adventures.

BillMurphy

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Prescience

BillMurphy said:

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Here's one example of a recent article: https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/columns/the-conundrum-of-the-dragon-knight-1000012426

What this article fails to do is point out that tanking is a necessity in early levels and in most games, like World of Warcraft, you can over gear content and delete archetype from your group. That said the article doesn't go into detail about Trials or use the word "Raid" (trials) at all which would be impossible without a tank.

Further, many Veteran Dungeons would be impossible to complete without a tank such as Ruins of Mazzatun, Bloodroot Forge, White-Gold Tower, Imperial City Prison, and Falkreath Hold, especially on hard mode for the last boss.

As you know there is a divide among players regarding the "trinity" in games. BDO and GW2 removed the trinity and many dislike this while others don't. By reading that article about the Dragon Knight the reader, who may be looking for a trinity-type game, would be dissuaded from trying it.

The article misinforms the reader very eloquently and gives inaccurate information.

Here's another example: https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/editorials/the-end-of-the-republic-swtor-analysis-1000012421

The context of this article would, at face value, dissuade some from even trying the game. I don't personally like the game but the power this site has over the reader and this genre should be respected. By questioning if the game will actually "survive" this year it will make some avoid it all together. Would you want to play a game where all of your progress *might* be deleted in under a year?

The article doesn't prove the game will indeed die and we should again respect the power this site has as I am certain it would dissuade people from trying the game.

Someone commented on this article stating: 
"lmao .. no .. its not going anywhere till 2023 at the earliest


  worthless clickbait ... you have to do better than this ..."

TalulaRose

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Here's one example of a recent article: https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/columns/the-conundrum-of-the-dragon-knight-1000012426

What this article fails to do is point out that tanking is a necessity in early levels and in most games, like World of Warcraft, you can over gear content and delete archetype from your group. That said the article doesn't go into detail about Trials or use the word "Raid" (trials) at all which would be impossible without a tank.

Further, many Veteran Dungeons would be impossible to complete without a tank such as Ruins of Mazzatun, Bloodroot Forge, White-Gold Tower, Imperial City Prison, and Falkreath Hold, especially on hard mode for the last boss.

As you know there is a divide among players regarding the "trinity" in games. BDO and GW2 removed the trinity and many dislike this while others don't. By reading that article about the Dragon Knight the reader, who may be looking for a trinity-type game, would be dissuaded from trying it.

The article misinforms the reader very eloquently and gives inaccurate information.

Here's another example: https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/editorials/the-end-of-the-republic-swtor-analysis-1000012421

The context of this article would, at face value, dissuade some from even trying the game. I don't personally like the game but the power this site has over the reader and this genre should be respected. By questioning if the game will actually "survive" this year it will make some avoid it all together. Would you want to play a game where all of your progress *might* be deleted in under a year?

The article doesn't prove the game will indeed die and we should again respect the power this site has as I am certain it would dissuade people from trying the game.

Someone commented on this article stating: 
"lmao .. no .. its not going anywhere till 2023 at the earliest


  worthless clickbait ... you have to do better than this ..."

EponyxDamor

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Here's one example of a recent article: https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/columns/the-conundrum-of-the-dragon-knight-1000012426

What this article fails to do is point out that tanking is a necessity in early levels and in most games, like World of Warcraft, you can over gear content and delete archetype from your group. That said the article doesn't go into detail about Trials or use the word "Raid" (trials) at all which would be impossible without a tank.

Further, many Veteran Dungeons would be impossible to complete without a tank such as Ruins of Mazzatun, Bloodroot Forge, White-Gold Tower, Imperial City Prison, and Falkreath Hold, especially on hard mode for the last boss.

As you know there is a divide among players regarding the "trinity" in games. BDO and GW2 removed the trinity and many dislike this while others don't. By reading that article about the Dragon Knight the reader, who may be looking for a trinity-type game, would be dissuaded from trying it.

The article misinforms the reader very eloquently and gives inaccurate information.

Here's another example: https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/editorials/the-end-of-the-republic-swtor-analysis-1000012421

The context of this article would, at face value, dissuade some from even trying the game. I don't personally like the game but the power this site has over the reader and this genre should be respected. By questioning if the game will actually "survive" this year it will make some avoid it all together. Would you want to play a game where all of your progress *might* be deleted in under a year?

The article doesn't prove the game will indeed die and we should again respect the power this site has as I am certain it would dissuade people from trying the game.

Someone commented on this article stating: 
"lmao .. no .. its not going anywhere till 2023 at the earliest


  worthless clickbait ... you have to do better than this ..."

The pieces you've linked are flagged as editorials and/or blogs ... Neither are "opinionated reviews" you mentioned, or reviews at all.

SBFord

As a counter argument I would suggest that anyone who is swayed one way or another by a single article is not performing due diligence. As you would not go and purchase a car or hire a remodeling contractor without comparative information from other sources, so too should it be with anything that can cost money. 

Making informed decisions requires critical thinking and research into any topic, not just those attached to gaming.

I have more faith in our readers than to think they'll ever take our word alone for anything.

JeffSpicoli

I like this website, I like the people that post here , the giveaways , the articles & reviews which often include games outside the MMO Genre. My only complaint would be ....enough with the chair & desk reviews.

Slapshot1188

Everyone knows for the real scoop you have to look for Slapshot's take on a game...

  

Personally... I love the site.  I am free to challenge articles when I feel the need.  That's what makes for good discussion.  

BillMurphy

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

Prescience

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

EponyxDamor

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).

BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.

Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.

Prescience

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).

BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.

Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.

There are biased reviews but my main point, pulling a quote from my original post, " In the past year or so a host of articles have flooded the main page of MMORPG.com that, by most accounts, seem to be biased. "

I believe that any article posted on the site, regardless of tag, has the potential to dissuade players or point them in the right direction. This has the potential to shape the genre in meaningful ways. 

Articles falsely claiming that there is no trinity in a game or that another game could die in a year, without any evidence, is a bit troubling. it also has the power to change a persons perspective on a game they were once willing to try. This can create droughts in one title and promote growth in another.

If you don't think posting "this game could be dead soon" on the front of this very well-established and powerful site, without any evidence, isn't troubling than you and I will not agree on this point.

OhhPaigey

Torval said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Tanking isn't necessary for over 90% of the content in ESO. In most MMOs unless I'm doing raid level a content a tank isn't necessary. You don't like the author's opinion. That's all this amounts to and you're trying to balloon that into something it's not.

This is true, idk how many times we've had to continue on without a tank in dungeons, it makes things a little more interesting, in fact, most people who queue as tanks are not actual tanks anyway, so there's that, lol.

Prescience

Torval said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Here's one example of a recent article: https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/columns/the-conundrum-of-the-dragon-knight-1000012426

What this article fails to do is point out that tanking is a necessity in early levels and in most games, like World of Warcraft, you can over gear content and delete archetype from your group. That said the article doesn't go into detail about Trials or use the word "Raid" (trials) at all which would be impossible without a tank.

Further, many Veteran Dungeons would be impossible to complete without a tank such as Ruins of Mazzatun, Bloodroot Forge, White-Gold Tower, Imperial City Prison, and Falkreath Hold, especially on hard mode for the last boss.

As you know there is a divide among players regarding the "trinity" in games. BDO and GW2 removed the trinity and many dislike this while others don't. By reading that article about the Dragon Knight the reader, who may be looking for a trinity-type game, would be dissuaded from trying it.

The article misinforms the reader very eloquently and gives inaccurate information.

Here's another example: https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/editorials/the-end-of-the-republic-swtor-analysis-1000012421

The context of this article would, at face value, dissuade some from even trying the game. I don't personally like the game but the power this site has over the reader and this genre should be respected. By questioning if the game will actually "survive" this year it will make some avoid it all together. Would you want to play a game where all of your progress *might* be deleted in under a year?

The article doesn't prove the game will indeed die and we should again respect the power this site has as I am certain it would dissuade people from trying the game.

Someone commented on this article stating: 
"lmao .. no .. its not going anywhere till 2023 at the earliest


  worthless clickbait ... you have to do better than this ..."

Tanking isn't necessary for over 90% of the content in ESO. In most MMOs unless I'm doing raid level a content a tank isn't necessary. You don't like the author's opinion. That's all this amounts to and you're trying to balloon that into something it's not.

I'd argue you can't do 90% of the dungeons on Veteran turning on the scroll at the last boss with four DPS with resto staves. I mean, if you're talking about just doing normal dungeons without a tank that's a different story but I don't think you do Vet pledges daily with scroll at the end (for two keys). There'd be no way to without a tank. Zero raids can be done without a tank.

EponyxDamor

Prescience said:

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).

BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.

Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.

Articles falsely claiming that there is no trinity in a game or that another game could die in a year, without any evidence, is a bit troubling. it also has the power to change a persons perspective on a game they were once willing to try. This can create droughts in one title and promote growth in another.

Neither of the articles in question did either of these things. At best, the ESO article argues that the trinity isn't *needed* for most content, not that there isn't one in the game whatsoever. Furthermore, any sentences referencing the trinity in that blog post are actually a question, not a statement. It only take a few moments of extra research outside of this blog post to find out that the game does, indeed, have healer, tank, and DPS roles (ie, the "holy trinity").

So, even if you wanted to restructure your argument based on that (that MMORPG.com is spreading false information), you'd still have no evidence for your assertion.

Prescience

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).

BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.

Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.

Articles falsely claiming that there is no trinity in a game or that another game could die in a year, without any evidence, is a bit troubling. it also has the power to change a persons perspective on a game they were once willing to try. This can create droughts in one title and promote growth in another.

Neither of the articles in question did either of these things. At best, the ESO article argues that the trinity isn't *needed* for most content, not that there isn't one in the game whatsoever. Furthermore, any sentence referencing the trinity in that blog post is actually a question, not a statement. It only take a few moments of extra research outside of this blog post to find out that the game does, indeed, have healer, tank, and DPS roles (ie, the "holy trinity").

So, even if you wanted to restructure your argument based on that (that MMORPG.com is spreading false information), you'd still have no evidence for your assertion.

The article implies you can do most dungeons with four DPS with resto staves. End game content which is comprised mostly of Vet Dungeons and Vet Trials would be impossible in that fashion.

The article tries to create some sort of dilemma for Dragon Knights that seemingly only exists in that article or in the authors mind. I doubt they are doing end game content.

EponyxDamor

Prescience said:

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

EponyxDamor said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree. 

What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site.  If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums. 

Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features. 

No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.

Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).

BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.

Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.

Articles falsely claiming that there is no trinity in a game or that another game could die in a year, without any evidence, is a bit troubling. it also has the power to change a persons perspective on a game they were once willing to try. This can create droughts in one title and promote growth in another.

Neither of the articles in question did either of these things. At best, the ESO article argues that the trinity isn't *needed* for most content, not that there isn't one in the game whatsoever. Furthermore, any sentence referencing the trinity in that blog post is actually a question, not a statement. It only take a few moments of extra research outside of this blog post to find out that the game does, indeed, have healer, tank, and DPS roles (ie, the "holy trinity").

So, even if you wanted to restructure your argument based on that (that MMORPG.com is spreading false information), you'd still have no evidence for your assertion.

The article implies you can do most dungeons with four DPS with resto staves. End game content which is comprised mostly of Vet Dungeons and Vet Trials would be impossible in that fashion.

The article tries to create some sort of dilemma for Dragon Knights that seemingly only exists in that article or in the authors mind. I doubt they are doing end game content.

Its a blog post, so it shouldn't be a surprised that its written from the mindset of the author ...

Again, the blog post doesn't even say you can do end game content that way, but you seem to continually read that into it. In fact, the words "end game" don't even appear at all in the blog post. Moreover, the author is mostly asking for advice from the reader, rather than stating *anything* about how end game is completed.

Ghavrigg

Methinks you overestimate the power this site has. 

frostymug

Question everything and use your own processor to make any decision. Unless you're reading technical manuals, there will always be some bias. And as someone who has to read plenty of technical manuals, let me just say, "you don't want to do that". With bias.

I've never not played a game because of a single article from here or any other site. I've never paid for a game because of any single article here or anywhere else. I will admit I have tried some free to play games because of an article. Not because it said I should or should not so much as because it brought a game to my attention.

What game that you like did they publish a bad opinion piece on? Or what game that you don't like did they publish a glowing one on? What's your bias?

Prescience

Torval said:

Prescience said:

Torval said:

Prescience said:

BillMurphy said:

Example? This way we can try to improve. 

Here's one example of a recent article: https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/columns/the-conundrum-of-the-dragon-knight-1000012426

What this article fails to do is point out that tanking is a necessity in early levels and in most games, like World of Warcraft, you can over gear content and delete archetype from your group. That said the article doesn't go into detail about Trials or use the word "Raid" (trials) at all which would be impossible without a tank.

Further, many Veteran Dungeons would be impossible to complete without a tank such as Ruins of Mazzatun, Bloodroot Forge, White-Gold Tower, Imperial City Prison, and Falkreath Hold, especially on hard mode for the last boss.

As you know there is a divide among players regarding the "trinity" in games. BDO and GW2 removed the trinity and many dislike this while others don't. By reading that article about the Dragon Knight the reader, who may be looking for a trinity-type game, would be dissuaded from trying it.

The article misinforms the reader very eloquently and gives inaccurate information.

Here's another example: https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/editorials/the-end-of-the-republic-swtor-analysis-1000012421

The context of this article would, at face value, dissuade some from even trying the game. I don't personally like the game but the power this site has over the reader and this genre should be respected. By questioning if the game will actually "survive" this year it will make some avoid it all together. Would you want to play a game where all of your progress *might* be deleted in under a year?

The article doesn't prove the game will indeed die and we should again respect the power this site has as I am certain it would dissuade people from trying the game.

Someone commented on this article stating: 
"lmao .. no .. its not going anywhere till 2023 at the earliest


  worthless clickbait ... you have to do better than this ..."

Tanking isn't necessary for over 90% of the content in ESO. In most MMOs unless I'm doing raid level a content a tank isn't necessary. You don't like the author's opinion. That's all this amounts to and you're trying to balloon that into something it's not.

I'd argue you can't do 90% of the dungeons on Veteran turning on the scroll at the last boss with four DPS with resto staves. I mean, if you're talking about just doing normal dungeons without a tank that's a different story but I don't think you do Vet pledges daily with scroll at the end (for two keys). There'd be no way to without a tank. Zero raids can be done without a tank.

I'm sure you can't do 90% of the dungeons on veteran without a tank, or rather most groups couldn't.

But then I didn't say did I? I said 90% of the content which is what the author of the article said. He didn't say you could steamroll and zerg raids with no tank. That was you going someplace else all on your own. You should go reread what he said again without jumping to conclusions.

Most content doesn't require a tank. True.

Magicka DKs aren't in a great position. Not sure, I don't have a DK.

But this should be in that ESO thread so that author can see and respond if he wants. This isn't the right place for an ESO tanking discussion. This is the place where you try and make a case for you OP claim, which you're not done well. If this was raid, I'd kick you and get a better tank.

This quote from the article pretty much counters your entire post:

" I think that is where Dragon Knight gets screwed the most, they have an amazing skill tree dedicated to tanking in a game that I feel like really doesn’t NEED a tank to succeed. "

If "success" in a game is spamming the easiest content with four DPS using Resto Staves then casual has been redefined. 

Succeeding in the game is doing undaunted pledges on veteran and even regular trials. Even non veteran trials will need that "dedicated tanking skill tree."

Also, saying a game won't make it through the year is a bit ridiculous. Especially given there's content coming out for SW:TOR, there's a healthy player base, and the game developers have stated nothing of the sort.