Elder Scrolls Online

[LSnow]

Well i hope its monthly payments and not F2P. Because id rather pay for quality product than get another crappy F2P MMORPG, which it will be if not constant stream of income.

 

[chasespace]

If it had the same pay model as Guild Wars 2(buy the game then microtransactions) I would be on board.

 

[Osprey]

I was interested before, but knew very few details. That video helps to answer some questions. I like hearing that we can play in first-person, if we choose. That's good for anyone who wants to treat it like a single-player ES game.

I'm also intrigued by their post-game mechanism. After you finish the end-game, you have the option of exploring the other factions' quadrants with your current character. My take is that you can then do all or many of the quests that those factions had to do, but with the challenges ramped up to 50+ level. That's a nice option so that you don't have to abandon your character to create a whole new one under the new faction in order to do their content.

Never played an MMO before, don't like cooperating with others online. But I might give this a whirl.

It sounds like there will be plenty for solo players to do, which is good. People can sort of treat it like a single-player ES game, if they want. In time, though, you'll probably meet a few people who are like you and who you feel comfortable with, and the addictive appeal of the cooperative aspect will become more apparent. It's rarely fun to quest with total strangers, but, as you do, you learn about them (how good they are, how mature they are and how seriously they take the game) and get more comfortable with the ones that are of like mind as you. It's like a forum like this -- at first, everyone is a stranger, but, the more that you read and post, the more that you get comfortable with other posters and visit more regularly to see what they say and discuss things with them. Speaking of which, perhaps some of the posters here will want to meet up in ESO.

I refuse to believe it's worse than Lord of the Rings Online.

I liked LotRO. Of course, I stopped after the free month was up, but I enjoyed it for that month. I don't understand why people have such negative opinions of MMOs. I wonder if it's because they play them for too long--becoming too addicted and caught up in the social aspects so that they can't quit and, eventually, grow to hate the habit--instead of gracefully quitting much earlier, when they started to lose interest.

I've never played an MMO for very long and have liked each one for the fun that they gave me in that time. Maybe I just have a different perspective because I typically play single-player games for only a few months before moving onto something else. My only expectation from an MMO is that I'll get a good month or two of fun out of it, like a singleplayer game. If I get more, great, but I'm happy to quit after the first or second month if I'm starting to lose interest, but I don't hold that against the game if I got as much fun out of it as I would a typical single-player game. Anyways, that's me.

 

[RandV]

I liked LotRO. Of course, I stopped after the free month was up, but I enjoyed it for that month. I don't understand why people have such negative opinions of MMOs. I wonder if it's because they play them for too long--becoming too addicted and caught up in the social aspects so that they can't quit and, eventually, grow to hate the habit--instead of gracefully quitting much earlier, when they started to lose interest.

I've never played an MMO for very long and have liked each one for the fun that they gave me in that time. Maybe I just have a different perspective because I typically play single-player games for only a few months before moving onto something else. My only expectation from an MMO is that I'll get a good month or two of fun out of it, like a singleplayer game. If I get more, great, but I'm happy to quit after the first or second month if I'm starting to lose interest, but I don't hold that against the game if I got as much fun out of it as I would a typical single-player game. Anyways, that's me.

I'm kind of the same and I think these two things go hand in hand explaining it. Consider FFXIV, I'm on a newbie server and not even two weeks in people are forming guilds with the purpose of 'end game' raiding. That seems to be the difference here, for hard core MMOPRG's WoW has created the impression that the 'fun' part is all in the end game content, with big raids and grinding for epic gear or whatever. Where someone like you or I will casually play through the games content enjoying it as it comes others will rush through expecting an end game that can keep them occupied for months/years, and will crap on a game regardless of how good the level 1-xx portion was if it doesn't deliver that.

And the developers are just as guilty here, since MMO's have traditional run on a subscription model when they get players the more months they can keep them paying/playing the more money they make. One of the reasons I usually stick to single player RPG's.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Hopefully this game bankrupts Bethesda

In fact I'm fairly positive that this game will fail hard

The MMO craze is over (thank god)

It's a niche market and that's fine

 

[Osprey]

I'm kind of the same and I think these two things go hand in hand explaining it. Consider FFXIV, I'm on a newbie server and not even two weeks in people are forming guilds with the purpose of 'end game' raiding. That seems to be the difference here, for hard core MMOPRG's WoW has created the impression that the 'fun' part is all in the end game content, with big raids and grinding for epic gear or whatever. Where someone like you or I will casually play through the games content enjoying it as it comes others will rush through expecting an end game that can keep them occupied for months/years, and will crap on a game regardless of how good the level 1-xx portion was if it doesn't deliver that.

Yeah, I most enjoy the progression and the discovery... visiting new lands, fighting new creatures, leveling up and gaining new skills. That's where the real fun is for me. Once you get to the end game, generally, all of that dries up. You've seen the whole world (lands, creatures, etc.), reached the level cap and gained all or nearly all of the available skills. That's when I start to lose interest, so it seems odd to me that some other players appear to have low interest in the level-building content and just want to get to the level cap and end-game. Maybe those are the people that tend to complain the most, since they can't appreciate the game unless the end game meets their expectations. LotRO had almost no end game at launch, so I can understand if that's where a lot of the criticism towards it comes from, but I didn't play it with any expectation of an end game and just enjoyed the leveling up and exploring of new lands until I was almost at the cap, had seen almost all of the world and the billing cycle came up.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Hopefully this game bankrupts Bethesda

In fact I'm fairly positive that this game will fail hard

The MMO craze is over (thank god)

It's a niche market and that's fine

The game will likely not do well, but I'm not sure what MMO craze you're talking about.

There have been major MMOs for decades and will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

As for bankrupting Bethesda? Surely, you jest.

 

[Towers]

OMG OMG I GOT AN INVITE TO THE ELDER SCROLLS MMO!! TOO BAD I really don't give a ****...

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Finally decided to use my ESO invite. What a disappointment. I understand it's in beta and everything, but if they plan on releasing it in April, what I just played is pretty close to the finished product.

Combat is hilariously bad (even for an Elder Scrolls game) and the graphics are a joke, especially for the same people that did Skyrim. The class development system is a little iffy. About the only thing I like in that regard is that it gives a pretty wide option on what to use skill points on. But the restriction to a certain class when creating a character is so anti-Elder Scrolls, it hurts.

If it was free, I might see some people sticking around and playing, just to claim they have. But if they plan on this game having a monthly subscription?

 

[Benny Lava]

I actually think the graphics are pretty damn good for an mmo. I'm not a big fan of the combat either but it's better than some other mmos (GW2 in particular).

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Just of the recent MMOs I've played, Rift and Tera both have better graphics. They look like they went back in time and stole the graphic engine from the original Everquest

 

[Benny Lava]

Haven't played Tera but I think ESO looks noticeably better than Rift, especially character models.

 

[Corto]

Haven't played Tera but I think ESO looks noticeably better than Rift, especially character models.

I played the stress test over the weekend a bit (used my buddy's key).

What I thought of it.
- the ENGINE is crap
- the GRAPHICS are good - the lighting etc make it better than TERA or RIFT
- the character models are WORLDS better than TERA/RIFT/etc
- in the end, while no Skyrim, for an MMO, the graphics are okay.
And the non-cartoony style makes it much better than most MMO these days - but that's down to personal taste, I don't like cartoony crap and I like games going for reality
- the combat is/will be... well, a bit crap, much like every TES game ever made
- I get the feeling that the sense of exploration and a huge world will be there
- interface is very Skyrim

Anyway, as an MMO - I think it just won't live as the combat makes any proper end-game content a no-go.

But as a Skyrim-for-friends, I think it could be a hit.

If it gives me 2-3 months of that Skyrim-for-friends experience, I think it's a success.

I expected the worst (seeing how some people reacted to the beta), but instead, now I'm intrigued.
So, if you hated the beta, and have a key, give it to me and I'll be your friend!

 

[Benny Lava]

Yeah I think people have been overly critical of ESO, it's really a lot of fun, especially the pvp.

But at $60 for the game plus $15/month sub fee I can't see it doing very well. As fun as I think it is I can't justify paying that much for a game with such noticeable flaws.

 

[Turris the Turret]

I played the stress test over the weekend. I can understand why some people would like it, but its just not my type of MMO.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I really didn't see the appeal of the character models. Like I said, it looked like they were taken straight out of a game from a couple decades ago.

I'll give it another shot when there's another beta event, but unless I've been playing another game, I can't see how the characters here were considered better looking than:

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Did you like Guildwars 2?

Did you like Neverwinter?

If yes, this is a game you would enjoy... a lot.

If you are expecting WoW, or anything like WoW. This is not the game for you.

 

[PZA*]

Anyone have a beta key they are not using?

 

[karnige]

Did you like Guildwars 2?

Did you like Neverwinter?

If yes, this is a game you would enjoy... a lot.

If you are expecting WoW, or anything like WoW. This is not the game for you.

Im a huge fan of neverwinter. as a f2p its quite good. I wasn't a fan of GW though. I think this game will be brutal. combat is brutal

 

[Osprey]

But as a Skyrim-for-friends, I think it could be a hit.

If it gives me 2-3 months of that Skyrim-for-friends experience, I think it's a success.

I think that you're on to something. Maybe that's all that they're really aiming for this to be. It might be kind of like the missing multiplayer component for Skyrim released as a standalone game. If so, then it may not be such an issue if the combat doesn't match up to other MMOs. If it's the same as Skyrim, that might be good enough. People expecting the next big MMO might be disappointed, but those expecting an online Skyrim might find it just what they wanted.

Of course, if a "Skyrim-for-friends experience" (as you put it) is what they're aiming for, they should probably ditch the monthly subscription. People are liable to play it for 1-3 months, like you suggested, and then cancel. Without a subscription, though, people will be inclined to play longer and you might entice them into buying expansions every 6-12 months. They'll also be more inclined to return to the game after absence (like people have been returning to Skyrim recently). Let players return at any time without having to pay up unless they want all of the expansions that they missed. That's the model that I would go with. You certainly don't need subscriptions for online games to be massively profitable, as games like in the Battlefield and CoD series have proven. Chances are that ESO will eventually drop the monthly rate, anyways, but it'll look like a failure at that point. It'd be better just to make that the model from the start.

 

[Teezax]

I personally enjoyed the 8 hrs i played, but as others have said, i detest the combat. If they could just make the combat like Dark/Demon Souls, i'd be in heaven, those games got it right.
It should be F2P however.

 

[Moskau]

I personally enjoyed the 8 hrs i played, but as others have said, i detest the combat.

And 50+% of an MMO is the combat when it comes down to it. After all of the mundane quests are completed, after you have best in slot gear or near best in slot gear, and after all of your reputations and trade skills are maxed all you are left with is if the combat feels fluid or not. At least until a new patch comes out and gives you a week or two of more mundane quests. The PvE in the game is essentially going to be a really crappy version of Guild Wars 2 which had bad PvE to begin with or a high budget version of Darkfall.

 

[chasespace]

New trailer dropped today(a whopping 8 minutes!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej6R7YEGmO0

While the trailer looks awesome it illustrates something I really dislike about advertising for video games. They use CG-trailers to show off a cool aspect of the game or story but it isn't actually comparable to actual gameplay nor does it look that good. Films don't do it so I don't get why games do, if you actually show the game it would probably self themselves.

 

[Osprey]

Here's chasespace's link embedded for everyone's convenience:

While the trailer looks awesome it illustrates something I really dislike about advertising for video games. They use CG-trailers to show off a cool aspect of the game or story but it isn't actually comparable to actual gameplay nor does it look that good. Films don't do it so I don't get why games do, if you actually show the game it would probably self themselves.

I'm the same way. I don't get at all why people get excited for cinematic trailers of games. Do you get excited for cutscenes when you're playing the game? They're not even actual cutscenes much of the time, but, rather, scenes rendered exclusively for the trailer. Can you imagine if the bulk of movie trailers were scenes that were not actually in the movie? People complain about false advertising... yet it's completely acceptable with game trailers.

Also, I don't want to come across as a condescending PC gamer, but it seems to me that the problem is biggest with games that are also (or only) on consoles. Maybe, because they play on TVs, console gamers are more comfortable with and accepting of cutscenes, since they watch movies on the same sets, whereas PC gamers aren't as keen on them (perhaps because monitors tend to be smaller) and want to get back to the gameplay. There have certainly been cinematic trailers for PC-only games for a long time (I remember a few for World of Warcraft in 2004, for example), but it seems to have become especially prevalent since cross-platforming between PCs and consoles became popular and easy in the last decade. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, and more to do with YouTube than any difference in gamers, which is possible, but I have known PC gamers to be the more "Get to the gameplay!" crowd.

Anyways, I'll typically not even watch game trailers, or I'll skip through them to see if there's any actual gameplay to view. When there isn't, or there's very little of it, it makes me wonder if the developers are hiding anything. I'm not suggesting that Bethesda is, since there's enough gameplay video already released for ESO, but it's often a concern.

 

[RandV]

I'm the same way. I don't get at all why people get excited for cinematic trailers of games. Do you get excited for cutscenes when you're playing the game? They're not even actual cutscenes much of the time, but, rather, scenes rendered exclusively for the trailer. Can you imagine if the bulk of movie trailers were scenes that were not actually in the movie? People who complain about false advertising... yet it's completely acceptable with game trailers.

Also, I don't want to come across as a condescending PC gamer, but it seems to me that the problem is biggest with games that are also (or only) on consoles. Maybe, because they play on TVs, console gamers are more comfortable with and accepting of cutscenes, since they watch movies on the same sets, whereas PC gamers aren't as keen on them (perhaps because monitors tend to be smaller) and want to get back to the gameplay.

Anyways, I'll typically not even watch game trailers, or I'll skip through them to see if there's any actual gameplay to view. When there isn't, or there's very little of it, it makes me wonder if the developers are hiding anything. I'm not suggesting that Bethesda is, since there's enough gameplay video already released for ESO, but it's often a concern.

Hmm, maybe blame Square for it's FFVII advertising back in the 90's?