Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SovrathI believe we already knew this from earlier info. This isnt' a surprise.
It's a surprise to me. It's interesting though, a different approach than other games. I don't know if it's better or worse, but it's definitely different.Isn't one of the fundamental principles of going into Enemy Territory the risk of encountering Enemies ?
immersion-wise oes such a concept make sense ? will enemy territory be enemy territory or just another area ?
The enemies are there, just like they are in the single player games. They just aren't other players. If it works in the single player games then there's no reason it can't work in the MMO.
Whether or not it's 'better' is something we won't be able to answer until a large number of people are playing the game and why the people who leave the game leave it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by RobokappOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SovrathI believe we already knew this from earlier info. This isnt' a surprise.
It's a surprise to me. It's interesting though, a different approach than other games. I don't know if it's better or worse, but it's definitely different.Isn't one of the fundamental principles of going into Enemy Territory the risk of encountering Enemies ? immersion-wise oes such a concept make sense ? will enemy territory be enemy territory or just another area ? The enemies are there, just like they are in the single player games. They just aren't other players. If it works in the single player games then there's no reason it can't work in the MMO. Whether or not it's 'better' is something we won't be able to answer until a large number of people are playing the game and why the people who leave the game leave it. so the quest-givers are all neutral and share quests with both factions I imagine?
alright. makes sense.
The area is going to be phased, so the quest givers visible to one faction do not need to be visible to players of other factions. Ditto for the regular NPCs and Mobs as well. It can be a completely different experience depending on what faction the player is a member of.
In fact, it makes a lot more sense that with the phased environments each faction will see a different set of quest givers, NPCs and Mobs because otherwise players would see these characters doing things with invisible partners or spontaneously dying for no visible reason.
You're right, the scenario you've described doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If that's the way they go with it, I can't imagine anyone would be that happy with the experience.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
I would wager 2 would say open world exploration, 2 would say kicking my friend in the face and 6 would say be the hero that saves the world.
lol You may be right!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
I would wager 2 would say open world exploration, 2 would say kicking my friend in the face and 6 would say be the hero that saves the world.
lol You may be right!
I'm sure a few would say 'troll' NPCs by stealing their clothes. I've done that play through.
Problem here is, they decided to build the house out of paper. Doesn't matter how many rooms you add, how many floors, how many bathrooms...when the wind starts blowing and the rain starts falling the house becomes a soggy mess.
They decided the 3 fatcion DAOC model was the best way to design the game and everything else is based on it and that is why no matter what they do people do not like it. Now DAOC might be a good design but for a TES MMO? IMO no, it is the wrong design.
But they have chosen their path and they ultimately will have to live with the results, good or bad. I hope for their sake it isn't as bad as I suspect it might be.
There is no right or wrong decision in what a TES mmo should be be.
IMO a TES MMO should be more PvP based than PvE based.
I think arguably that there is right and wrong in designing something with an IP which has already, demonstrably and very successfully got so much right itself already.
Anyone with common sense would, in deciding to use an IP - look to maximise the benefit the IP brings to the table. 7 million players for Skyrim? Numbers like that should make any MMO designer salivate with anticipation!
So check out what made 7 million players play it, put the core elements of that into your MMO - only compromising where you absolutely have to because of the inherent differences between MMO and single player design limitations... and then add extras in a complementary way.
On the way - keep your potential playerbase updated on your major design decisions - explaining why the MMO genre HAS to have certain things which TES doesn't -and how you have done your best to incorporate those things with as much TES goodness as can be fit in the same game.
Do not make design choices which preclude successful elements of your IP.
THAT was a wrong decision...
I disagree.
Take those 7 million TES players, 80% of those players are console players. So right of the bat they are choosing not to please the core of the fanbase.
There are a lot more MMO players than TES PC players. So when deciding to enter the MMO world do you decide to please a small miniority of the TES fans interested in playing an MMO or do you try pleasing the much larger MMO audience.
I understand that TES did get popular for it's exploration. However it's PvE is below average. Seeing as most MMO PvE is even worse I do not have high hopes for TES if they decide to make the game PvE-centric.
I have the single player games for my PvE.
The most sensible thing for Bethesda to do with the SP franchise is add co-op to it's next release. Seeing as it's a console franchise now it will sell like hot cakes and please the core TES fans more than ANY MMO version of TES will.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could quote the % of those console players with PCs and those who also play MMOs... I would wager the overlap is significant.
Let's say 4 million then? MMO dev's still dream about numbers like that...
TES PvE is 'below average'? It's better than any PvE I have ever played - in many ways it is a benchmark for good and immersive PvE...aside from the combat mechanics - and that of course effects PvP too - in fact, rather more.
I would imagine the figures I ask for exist somewhere - there is certainly a chance of it.
Until I see them, your argument is largely speculative I feel.
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
I would wager 2 would say open world exploration, 2 would say kicking my friend in the face and 6 would say be the hero that saves the world.
I would wager they would have much more to say - not just the one thing or the other which coincides with this argument or that...
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
I would wager 2 would say open world exploration, 2 would say kicking my friend in the face and 6 would say be the hero that saves the world.
I would wager they would have much more to say - not just the one thing or the other which coincides with this argument or that...
I have been working in sales for a long time now and people are a lot more shallow then that. Its rare people buy products knowing the details. People normally focuse on 1 or 2 things they like about any product and the first gut reaction feature they yell out is the one that will normally sell them on the product. I sold a server once all on the fature it was black and looked sexy. Sure some can list a number of features they like about a product but whats important is like I said, the first one they list.
Thats why to the gamers exploring everywhere from level 1 in any direction this is not a TES game. Its one feature they are stuck on but its their number one. My number 1 for TES is there, so Im happy. Sure you may have a list of what you want in a TES game but thats not most people. Fact driven people are one of the smallest % of the population. People like you and me are not the norm.
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.
As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?
Well I'm back to wanting to skip this title altogether. I always said "phasing" would be an issue for those seeking immersion. Sure, if you can't PvP there's not much sense in seeing players from other factions, but how the HELL does making them not exist make up for it?
Stupid as fuck. "Mega server" was just a lame buzzword all along.
I agree 100%. I was initially leaning to maybe try this game due to them allowing us to adventure in other factions zones but now you wont even be able to see them? I mean wtf, if their are afraid of PvP then dont allow it but just to make the enemy faction go poof?
No, this is dumb as fuck. I am staying well away from this "MMORPG".
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.
As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?
Complete and utter nonsense. There have been plenty of MMORPGs with enough content for open world explorers and those games were made a decade ago. Ever heard of SWG? EQ 1? Asheron's Call?
You are making the misstake to think that a ThemePark is the only way to create an MMO and since in a ThemePark you cannot keep up with how fast players consume content then no MMO can do it. But that is a ThemePark problem, NOT an MMO problem.
ThemeParks are much easier for devs to create then a full fledged open world MMO like the one's mentioned above. It is easy to box the world into neat little zones with level bracketed content and static quests. It is much harder to create a huge world, which you can explore and create your own content by interacting with people.
Harder means more time, which means more development cost and that is what the issue is, NOT that MMOs cannot be possibly be done which centers around open world exploration. That has been done and can be done.
Much crying about nothing. What would you do if you could see the other faction and unable to PvP. /wave?
the point
your head
This stupid, messed up system is the result of crying about something ELSE.
Dang Eir_S. Not sure what this game did to you, but it must have been extreme.
Personally I like the fact that they are going in this direction. Without OWPVP, it makes no sense to see the enemy. This eliminates all of the people that would just emote and jump around the enemy.
Seems like the best compromise in order to allow us to explore the entire world.
I understand that we're all different, but I don't see a problem. I'm not a fan of phasing in general, but I think this is a prime example of why it should exist sometimes.
The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
Originally posted by hMJem The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
Originally posted by hMJem The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
The biggest problem SWToR had was lack of end game content. When hardcore players race ahead and run out of content thats one thing, when even the casual players are doing it the game has issues. The whole concept of keeping players in an MMO revolves around keeping them entertained, and SWToR did that for a month or two. It had expected 4-6 months of time before players reached that stage and so players had nothing to do so a lot unsubbed and went elsewhere for their entertainment. SWToR had a lesson to teach, have content ready before your current content is exhausted or have something to keep players entertained enough to keep subbing. Also last I checked SWToR was chugging along, or does failed mean it failed to retain it's initial sub base? It's switch to freemium? I will agree it failed to reach it's projected profits but equally by that measure very few games are successes.
I also have yet to see a forum that is like the in game community. Most forums are far more hostile, polarised and vocal than the vast majority you will meet in game. (Note that I said majority, you will still find such people in game).
Originally posted by jacktors Originally posted by hMJemThe thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
SWToR was just as bad for casual gamers as anyone else. If a game is bad, it doesn't matter what group it targets. The game will not perform up to expectations.
You're assuming that casual gamers would like to SWToR regardless of how bad it was because it was a casual, solo centric game.
Doesn't matter which side of an issue you're on, assumptions aren't usually the best thing to run with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
i other news, i just permanently super glued my palm to my face. I figured id save myself the trouble ...
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Originally posted by azmundai i other news, i just permanently super glued my palm to my face. I figured id save myself the trouble ...
ROFLMAO Thank you!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Eol- If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.
I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."
and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.
As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?
Complete and utter nonsense. There have been plenty of MMORPGs with enough content for open world explorers and those games were made a decade ago. Ever heard of SWG? EQ 1? Asheron's Call?
You are making the misstake to think that a ThemePark is the only way to create an MMO and since in a ThemePark you cannot keep up with how fast players consume content then no MMO can do it. But that is a ThemePark problem, NOT an MMO problem.
ThemeParks are much easier for devs to create then a full fledged open world MMO like the one's mentioned above. It is easy to box the world into neat little zones with level bracketed content and static quests. It is much harder to create a huge world, which you can explore and create your own content by interacting with people.
Harder means more time, which means more development cost and that is what the issue is, NOT that MMOs cannot be possibly be done which centers around open world exploration. That has been done and can be done.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. You mention SWG, there is no way there was enough 'exporation' content. Sure the planets were big but it was just the same mobs spread all over the planet. I love exploring, and I remember my disappointment going into dangerous areas solo and just finding more of the same mile after mile. Few landmarks of interest, just the same mobs, forever. As far as EQ1, that largely developed into a raid endgame which is not the same as 'open world exploration'.
Also, those games had much slower levelling than today's games, there were many time-sinks built into the game to slow down players from levelling too fast. By streamlining these things, WoW significantly increased the rate at which players level, for better or worse. In DAoC at release it took even the hardest core player several months to reach level 50, and when WoW came out players were doing that in weeks; casual players could take 6-12 months to hit level 50 in DAoC. DAoC slowed down crafting simply by having a timebar so it took minutes to do a single crafting action. Thats just a time sink, forcing players to slow down. Likewise with long slow horse routes and such, versus teleporting right to a spot like many games do it today. Or what about being forced to go back to your corpse, just another way to slow down players.
The point is, if you just want to go out and explore new areas, and if you play say a couple hours a day, there is no way there can be enough exploration material for you to play for years. No way. If you are a hardcore player and play 4+ hours a day, you will go through the material in weeks. Like I pointed out, they were able to create a hundred hours of content in Skyrim because the mobs levelled to some extent as you did, so most places you went to were level appropriate. A MMORPG cant even do that because they have to have level-specific content for all players, which means they need to create MUCH more material overall.
Its been shown over and over that hardcore players will rip through content at a rapid place to get to the 'endgame'. More casual players will take longer, but they will run out of exploration content too. Thats why MMORPGs need endgames, because sooner or later most players will hit max level. The question for ESO isnt 'do we have an endgame?', rather, its 'what type of an endgame will do provide?'. Open world exploration with many months of new material just isnt feasible. And this has nothing to do with 'sandbox' or 'themepark', which is an entirely different argument, it just has to do with the inherent economic limit on material they can include.
Originally posted by hMJem The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
You have to be kidding me. In no way shape or form are the MMORPG.com forums 'representative' of gamers. Most gamers dont bother to come to a forum and argue about games that havent even come out yet. Most players dont post in forums of games they DO play. If they do go to forums, its to look something up, not argue. Its just not worth their (limited) time, so they dont do it. By their very nature the forums tend to gather the harder core players, and MMORPG is the epitomy of that. There are literally millions of people who play MMORPGs, but most of them have not played nearly as much in terms of hours and number of games as the people who tend to post here. I remember in DAoC when people would argue on the forums, and try to act like a few hundred people commenting on the forums somehow accurately represented the tens of thousands who were playing the game. Ludicrous.
Originally posted by hMJem The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
The biggest problem SWToR had was lack of end game content. When hardcore players race ahead and run out of content thats one thing, when even the casual players are doing it the game has issues. The whole concept of keeping players in an MMO revolves around keeping them entertained, and SWToR did that for a month or two. It had expected 4-6 months of time before players reached that stage and so players had nothing to do so a lot unsubbed and went elsewhere for their entertainment. SWToR had a lesson to teach, have content ready before your current content is exhausted or have something to keep players entertained enough to keep subbing. Also last I checked SWToR was chugging along, or does failed mean it failed to retain it's initial sub base? It's switch to freemium? I will agree it failed to reach it's projected profits but equally by that measure very few games are successes.
I also have yet to see a forum that is like the in game community. Most forums are far more hostile, polarised and vocal than the vast majority you will meet in game. (Note that I said majority, you will still find such people in game).
I totally agree.
And by the way, I dont agree with the assumption from the other poster that SWTOR was a bad game. My son and I have been playing it for the last couple months and having a lot of fun. Its a good, fun, game and the graphics are nice. That being said, I agree there isnt much of an endgame (we just hit level 55) and so for hardcore players who raced through the content, naturally they wouldnt like the game as much and would be frustrated. But the lack of an endgame doesnt mean the levelling part of the game isnt good. Its a themepark MMORPG which isnt everyone's cup of tea. But my boy is a star wars fan, doesnt care about raids and such, and he has had a great time levelling up. That being said, it wouldnt surprise me if we move on in a couple months, but still they will have gotten 5 months of subs from two people plus 2 purchases of the expansion, which isnt bad.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Oh the ironyMoaning about the game being "a daoc clone themepark"Then using EQ as an example of "not a themepark"EQ IS More themeparky than daoc. Vanilla EQ and daoc were very similar, but EQ turned towards instancing and endgame raid sets.Of course TESO will be more themeparky than both though. But hopefully less so than other modern games like tsw, swtor, Neverwinter etc..I'm thinking it will probably be gw2 done right.
daoc went the instance route too actually (following EQ's lead with LDON)when they released catacombs about year after EQ implemented their instances.
and for every person like you there are probably half a dozen for whom open world PvP would be a no sale.
The developers need to pick an approach, stick with it, and do it well. No approach will please everybody. Every approach will turn off some players and appeal to others. If they do a PvE game with endgame raids, people will say its a WoW clone. If they do RvR people will say its a DAoC clone. If they focus on open world exploration without an immediate endgame for hardcore players, people will say its a themepark. People are going to criticize them no matter what they do simply because we all want something different than the next guy.
Personally I think they've picked a pretty good approach that should fill a good sized niche in the mmorpg market. It will be nice to have a game where they try to instill some pride in your realm/alliance in an ongoing campaign rather than have PvP be just queued battlegrounds and such. But it sounds like there will be plenty of PvE also. Should be a nice mix with a reasonably wide appeal.
This is actually a really bad idea. As someone said earlier why not only give people the choice, if you don't wanna PVP in PVE zones you just check a box and that's it. And then the people who love the immersion of going over to the enemy faction and exploring and PVPing?
It was SO much fun in DAOC to sneak over to midgard, took a really long time to get over there too and the excitement of staying alive and exploring was amazing. Oh well...
Comments
Isn't one of the fundamental principles of going into Enemy Territory the risk of encountering Enemies ?
immersion-wise oes such a concept make sense ? will enemy territory be enemy territory or just another area ?
The enemies are there, just like they are in the single player games. They just aren't other players. If it works in the single player games then there's no reason it can't work in the MMO.
Whether or not it's 'better' is something we won't be able to answer until a large number of people are playing the game and why the people who leave the game leave it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Isn't one of the fundamental principles of going into Enemy Territory the risk of encountering Enemies ? immersion-wise oes such a concept make sense ? will enemy territory be enemy territory or just another area ?
The enemies are there, just like they are in the single player games. They just aren't other players. If it works in the single player games then there's no reason it can't work in the MMO. Whether or not it's 'better' is something we won't be able to answer until a large number of people are playing the game and why the people who leave the game leave it.
so the quest-givers are all neutral and share quests with both factions I imagine?
alright. makes sense.
The area is going to be phased, so the quest givers visible to one faction do not need to be visible to players of other factions. Ditto for the regular NPCs and Mobs as well. It can be a completely different experience depending on what faction the player is a member of.
In fact, it makes a lot more sense that with the phased environments each faction will see a different set of quest givers, NPCs and Mobs because otherwise players would see these characters doing things with invisible partners or spontaneously dying for no visible reason.
You're right, the scenario you've described doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If that's the way they go with it, I can't imagine anyone would be that happy with the experience.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm sure a few would say 'troll' NPCs by stealing their clothes. I've done that play through.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could quote the % of those console players with PCs and those who also play MMOs... I would wager the overlap is significant.
Let's say 4 million then? MMO dev's still dream about numbers like that...
TES PvE is 'below average'? It's better than any PvE I have ever played - in many ways it is a benchmark for good and immersive PvE...aside from the combat mechanics - and that of course effects PvP too - in fact, rather more.
I would imagine the figures I ask for exist somewhere - there is certainly a chance of it.
Until I see them, your argument is largely speculative I feel.
I would wager they would have much more to say - not just the one thing or the other which coincides with this argument or that...
I have been working in sales for a long time now and people are a lot more shallow then that. Its rare people buy products knowing the details. People normally focuse on 1 or 2 things they like about any product and the first gut reaction feature they yell out is the one that will normally sell them on the product. I sold a server once all on the fature it was black and looked sexy. Sure some can list a number of features they like about a product but whats important is like I said, the first one they list.
Thats why to the gamers exploring everywhere from level 1 in any direction this is not a TES game. Its one feature they are stuck on but its their number one. My number 1 for TES is there, so Im happy. Sure you may have a list of what you want in a TES game but thats not most people. Fact driven people are one of the smallest % of the population. People like you and me are not the norm.
and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.
As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
Kili - WoW
Eol - Lineage 2
Camring - SWG
Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC
I agree 100%. I was initially leaning to maybe try this game due to them allowing us to adventure in other factions zones but now you wont even be able to see them? I mean wtf, if their are afraid of PvP then dont allow it but just to make the enemy faction go poof?
No, this is dumb as fuck. I am staying well away from this "MMORPG".
My gaming blog
Complete and utter nonsense. There have been plenty of MMORPGs with enough content for open world explorers and those games were made a decade ago. Ever heard of SWG? EQ 1? Asheron's Call?
You are making the misstake to think that a ThemePark is the only way to create an MMO and since in a ThemePark you cannot keep up with how fast players consume content then no MMO can do it. But that is a ThemePark problem, NOT an MMO problem.
ThemeParks are much easier for devs to create then a full fledged open world MMO like the one's mentioned above. It is easy to box the world into neat little zones with level bracketed content and static quests. It is much harder to create a huge world, which you can explore and create your own content by interacting with people.
Harder means more time, which means more development cost and that is what the issue is, NOT that MMOs cannot be possibly be done which centers around open world exploration. That has been done and can be done.
My gaming blog
Dang Eir_S. Not sure what this game did to you, but it must have been extreme.
Personally I like the fact that they are going in this direction. Without OWPVP, it makes no sense to see the enemy. This eliminates all of the people that would just emote and jump around the enemy.
Seems like the best compromise in order to allow us to explore the entire world.
I understand that we're all different, but I don't see a problem. I'm not a fan of phasing in general, but I think this is a prime example of why it should exist sometimes.
Here's hoping, anyway!
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
The biggest problem SWToR had was lack of end game content. When hardcore players race ahead and run out of content thats one thing, when even the casual players are doing it the game has issues. The whole concept of keeping players in an MMO revolves around keeping them entertained, and SWToR did that for a month or two. It had expected 4-6 months of time before players reached that stage and so players had nothing to do so a lot unsubbed and went elsewhere for their entertainment. SWToR had a lesson to teach, have content ready before your current content is exhausted or have something to keep players entertained enough to keep subbing. Also last I checked SWToR was chugging along, or does failed mean it failed to retain it's initial sub base? It's switch to freemium? I will agree it failed to reach it's projected profits but equally by that measure very few games are successes.
I also have yet to see a forum that is like the in game community. Most forums are far more hostile, polarised and vocal than the vast majority you will meet in game. (Note that I said majority, you will still find such people in game).
SWToR was just as bad for casual gamers as anyone else. If a game is bad, it doesn't matter what group it targets. The game will not perform up to expectations.
You're assuming that casual gamers would like to SWToR regardless of how bad it was because it was a casual, solo centric game.
Doesn't matter which side of an issue you're on, assumptions aren't usually the best thing to run with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
i other news, i just permanently super glued my palm to my face. I figured id save myself the trouble ...
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. You mention SWG, there is no way there was enough 'exporation' content. Sure the planets were big but it was just the same mobs spread all over the planet. I love exploring, and I remember my disappointment going into dangerous areas solo and just finding more of the same mile after mile. Few landmarks of interest, just the same mobs, forever. As far as EQ1, that largely developed into a raid endgame which is not the same as 'open world exploration'.
Also, those games had much slower levelling than today's games, there were many time-sinks built into the game to slow down players from levelling too fast. By streamlining these things, WoW significantly increased the rate at which players level, for better or worse. In DAoC at release it took even the hardest core player several months to reach level 50, and when WoW came out players were doing that in weeks; casual players could take 6-12 months to hit level 50 in DAoC. DAoC slowed down crafting simply by having a timebar so it took minutes to do a single crafting action. Thats just a time sink, forcing players to slow down. Likewise with long slow horse routes and such, versus teleporting right to a spot like many games do it today. Or what about being forced to go back to your corpse, just another way to slow down players.
The point is, if you just want to go out and explore new areas, and if you play say a couple hours a day, there is no way there can be enough exploration material for you to play for years. No way. If you are a hardcore player and play 4+ hours a day, you will go through the material in weeks. Like I pointed out, they were able to create a hundred hours of content in Skyrim because the mobs levelled to some extent as you did, so most places you went to were level appropriate. A MMORPG cant even do that because they have to have level-specific content for all players, which means they need to create MUCH more material overall.
Its been shown over and over that hardcore players will rip through content at a rapid place to get to the 'endgame'. More casual players will take longer, but they will run out of exploration content too. Thats why MMORPGs need endgames, because sooner or later most players will hit max level. The question for ESO isnt 'do we have an endgame?', rather, its 'what type of an endgame will do provide?'. Open world exploration with many months of new material just isnt feasible. And this has nothing to do with 'sandbox' or 'themepark', which is an entirely different argument, it just has to do with the inherent economic limit on material they can include.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
Kili - WoW
Eol - Lineage 2
Camring - SWG
Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC
You have to be kidding me. In no way shape or form are the MMORPG.com forums 'representative' of gamers. Most gamers dont bother to come to a forum and argue about games that havent even come out yet. Most players dont post in forums of games they DO play. If they do go to forums, its to look something up, not argue. Its just not worth their (limited) time, so they dont do it. By their very nature the forums tend to gather the harder core players, and MMORPG is the epitomy of that. There are literally millions of people who play MMORPGs, but most of them have not played nearly as much in terms of hours and number of games as the people who tend to post here. I remember in DAoC when people would argue on the forums, and try to act like a few hundred people commenting on the forums somehow accurately represented the tens of thousands who were playing the game. Ludicrous.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
Kili - WoW
Eol - Lineage 2
Camring - SWG
Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC
I totally agree.
And by the way, I dont agree with the assumption from the other poster that SWTOR was a bad game. My son and I have been playing it for the last couple months and having a lot of fun. Its a good, fun, game and the graphics are nice. That being said, I agree there isnt much of an endgame (we just hit level 55) and so for hardcore players who raced through the content, naturally they wouldnt like the game as much and would be frustrated. But the lack of an endgame doesnt mean the levelling part of the game isnt good. Its a themepark MMORPG which isnt everyone's cup of tea. But my boy is a star wars fan, doesnt care about raids and such, and he has had a great time levelling up. That being said, it wouldnt surprise me if we move on in a couple months, but still they will have gotten 5 months of subs from two people plus 2 purchases of the expansion, which isnt bad.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
Kili - WoW
Eol - Lineage 2
Camring - SWG
Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC
Moaning about the game being "a daoc clone themepark"
Then using EQ as an example of "not a themepark"
EQ IS More themeparky than daoc. Vanilla EQ and daoc were very similar, but EQ turned towards instancing and endgame raid sets.
Of course TESO will be more themeparky than both though. But hopefully less so than other modern games like tsw, swtor, Neverwinter etc..
I'm thinking it will probably be gw2 done right.
daoc went the instance route too actually (following EQ's lead with LDON)when they released catacombs about year after EQ implemented their instances.
and for every person like you there are probably half a dozen for whom open world PvP would be a no sale.
The developers need to pick an approach, stick with it, and do it well. No approach will please everybody. Every approach will turn off some players and appeal to others. If they do a PvE game with endgame raids, people will say its a WoW clone. If they do RvR people will say its a DAoC clone. If they focus on open world exploration without an immediate endgame for hardcore players, people will say its a themepark. People are going to criticize them no matter what they do simply because we all want something different than the next guy.
Personally I think they've picked a pretty good approach that should fill a good sized niche in the mmorpg market. It will be nice to have a game where they try to instill some pride in your realm/alliance in an ongoing campaign rather than have PvP be just queued battlegrounds and such. But it sounds like there will be plenty of PvE also. Should be a nice mix with a reasonably wide appeal.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
Kili - WoW
Eol - Lineage 2
Camring - SWG
Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC
This is actually a really bad idea. As someone said earlier why not only give people the choice, if you don't wanna PVP in PVE zones you just check a box and that's it. And then the people who love the immersion of going over to the enemy faction and exploring and PVPing?
It was SO much fun in DAOC to sneak over to midgard, took a really long time to get over there too and the excitement of staying alive and exploring was amazing. Oh well...