The Elder Scrolls Online

[Kalmah]

I don't believe this game draws from any kind of real inspiration. Just thinking about the core mechanics and design of the Elder Scrolls games being skewed and stretched over an MMO formula is repulsive. They are going to have to design a new combat system so that the game is even feasible. At this point it's not the same kind of game anymore; it just has the same name.

How many MMOs have failed so far anyways? From what I've heard it seems like pretty much all of them besides a few and those don't seem noteworthy since nobody is really talking about them.

They need to go big or go home. And to go big you need a new IP, new name, new world, new history/story, new combat/game mechanics ...

As a final thought, I remember watching one of the early dev interviews where he as was asked something like, "what innovations does the elder scrolls online bring to the scene?".. he stumbled over his own words to answer this and ended up changing the subject without an answer. To me, having no clear plan from the start means they are just dragging the elder scrolls name through the mud.

 

[Dijeangenie]

They need to go big or go home. And to go big you need a new IP, new name, new world, new history/story, new combat/game mechanics ...

As a final thought, I remember watching one of the early dev interviews where he as was asked something like, "what innovations does the elder scrolls online bring to the scene?".. he stumbled over his own words to answer this and ended up changing the subject without an answer. To me, having no clear plan from the start means they are just dragging the elder scrolls name through the mud.

I understand your point but World of Warcraft can but used as an example here. Firstly it was not a new IP, as mentioned previously. The RTS games of Warcraft 1 through 3 were very successful and there were plenty of people who were very relucatant to see the IP leave RTS land and become an MMO. Secondly, (and this is often forgotten) Wow was not actually that innovative. It improved upon, and did things better than, previous games, rather than making it up from scratch, games such as Everquest 2 etc already had many of the things WOW did, but WOW did it better so it won.

 

[diesbudt]

I understand your point but World of Warcraft can but used as an example here. Firstly it was not a new IP, as mentioned previously. The RTS games of Warcraft 1 through 3 were very successful and there were plenty of people who were very relucatant to see the IP leave RTS land and become an MMO. Secondly, (and this is often forgotten) Wow was not actually that innovative. It improved upon, and did things better than, previous games, rather than making it up from scratch, games such as Everquest 2 etc already had many of the things WOW did, but WOW did it better so it won.

And this is where you are wrong.

It was the first MMO to make questing the major source in leveling. Most if not all MMOs before this were more combat based on killing strong/big monsters in groups for the best xp, and quests were just for items here and there.

The perks for leveling were different. You now had "talents" based off their diablo II system which allowed customization.

EQ II and WoW were released just weeks between each other. So to say EQ had things "first" where there was not a lot of time inbetween for it to get a foothold means nothing.

Nov. 8 2004 - EQ II
Nov. 23 2004 - WoW

Also, again I personally am a person who would like to see what a world looks like more first person view than RTS, and I am sure others agree. Add in that you had friends and maybe even groups / "clans" from Warcraft III and DOTA, they all wanted to play together and WoW became the easy change over.

There was plenty of innovation in the time WoW was first released, because you have to remember this was early on in MMO timeframe, and even "2nd generation" if you want to call EQ 1, Asheron's call, Runescape, etc. Gen I.

WoW did it better than all those released at a similar time (Guild Wars, EQ 2, AC 2, etc.) and thus got a foothold in the innovation door. Also the PvP aspect of WoW had people intrigued with PvP in the world, and giving "honor" as it was the "warcraft title".

There is probably many more things to put here but A) I dont have time to look them up and B) It has been around almost 10 years the diffrence between MMOs then and now are starting to get cloudy in the memory departement with people.

 

[lozina]

Just making a :
-A strong single player game into an MMO is a bad idea

Uhh... what?

What about Ultima Online

 

[Martimus]

What I have seen from the game has looked really bad. It looks nothing like any elder scrolls game to date. It will probably be like the Syndicate remake, where it had absolutely nothing to do with the original in any way.

 

[diesbudt]

Uhh... what?

What about Ultima Online

Didn't like that as a single player game. So couldn't tell you as an MMO. But since I rarly hear people talk about it compared to

Rift/WoW/Swtor

(and infamously Warhammer/conan)

I cannot say it was a "good" idea.

 

[mango123]

You don't hear people talking about it because it is generationally affected by the fact that most of these kiddies are the ones that started gaming when cable was common, WoW was the "first" and only game people thought of when they thought of mmorpg.
These people that you're talking about didn't have computers back in these days, they weren't playing this game on AOL... (LOL) this is back in the day of the 14.4 modem.

If you ask anyone who has any sort of real venerable tenure in the PC gaming world... they will tell you that Ultima Online were the INNOVATORS of the genre of MMORPG!!! (edit> Graphical mmorpgs... I know MUDS etc...)

This was the only game that had a real sense of risk, and cooperation.

You left town and people could kill you and take all of your stuff like that.

That was excitement. There were zero levels, no grinding really to speak of. No pressure.

Meh, anyways....

I'm willing to bet that the comment about ultima not being a strong single player game stems from the fact that either A: you do not have the ability to play graphically lacking game, B: you are too young to have been alive when these were realeased, or C: you don't have any desire to play CRPGs, or D: you have no real taste in videogames.

Ultima was an INCREDIBLY successful IP and had some actually MANY industry firsts for CGames.

Ultima Online also sold a hell of a lot of copies, and was the only and leading MMORPG that was graphical until EQ came and people got bit by the 3d bug.



Fast forward to today:::

Look at how immensely popular DayZ is.... I think it is for one reason and one reason alone and that is a real sense of things actually matter in this game. Total Immersion. I make the wrong decision and I'm dead and I can actually lose all my stuff.

I think the high risk factor that DayZ shared with Ultima Online is why these games were so popular in their time, and also why permadeath and total loot is becoming a more common and "IN" feature to have in your video games.
IMHO this is just the beginning of this resurgance.

Surely the 1 million some DayZ players didnt play for the wonderful feeling of shooting the guns or the realistic zombie and player animations :hmm: or maybe it was the lovely physics engine that makes you break your leg going through a doorway :'(

No, they're playing this for the same reason UO and the original Ultima series was popular.

Danger, Immersion, decisions that matter. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[mango123]

And this is where you are wrong.

It was the first MMO to make questing the major source in leveling. Most if not all MMOs before this were more combat based on killing strong/big monsters in groups for the best xp, and quests were just for items here and there.

The perks for leveling were different. You now had "talents" based off their diablo II system which allowed customization.

EQ II and WoW were released just weeks between each other. So to say EQ had things "first" where there was not a lot of time inbetween for it to get a foothold means nothing.

Nov. 8 2004 - EQ II
Nov. 23 2004 - WoW

Also, again I personally am a person who would like to see what a world looks like more first person view than RTS, and I am sure others agree. Add in that you had friends and maybe even groups / "clans" from Warcraft III and DOTA, they all wanted to play together and WoW became the easy change over.

There was plenty of innovation in the time WoW was first released, because you have to remember this was early on in MMO timeframe, and even "2nd generation" if you want to call EQ 1, Asheron's call, Runescape, etc. Gen I.

WoW did it better than all those released at a similar time (Guild Wars, EQ 2, AC 2, etc.) and thus got a foothold in the innovation door. Also the PvP aspect of WoW had people intrigued with PvP in the world, and giving "honor" as it was the "warcraft title".

There is probably many more things to put here but A) I dont have time to look them up and B) It has been around almost 10 years the diffrence between MMOs then and now are starting to get cloudy in the memory departement with people.

^

this is wrong. wrong. wrong.

WoW was successful because of one thing.. MASS APPEAL.

They did not innovate ONE SINGLE FEATURE and this is coming from someone who has played EVERY SINGLE mmorpg even text based ones.

 

[Dijeangenie]

^

this is wrong. wrong. wrong.

WoW was successful because of one thing.. MASS APPEAL.

They did not innovate ONE SINGLE FEATURE and this is coming from someone who has played EVERY SINGLE mmorpg even text based ones.

This is what I was trying to say!

 

[Dankk]

Well, let's look at the TES games as they are now. Skyrim, for example, has:

• A generic, forgettable storyline
• Shitty, unsatisfying combat
• Huge, empty environments with nothing to do in them
• One-dimensional cardboard characters

In other words, TES would be perfect as an MMO. I can see why they're trying to make one. They're already halfway there. Just slap on multiplayer + a monthly subscription fee, and you're set.

 

[bguile]

I for one am seriously thinking of getting it. I'm not a big fan of MMOs, but I am a huge fan of TES series. Mainly I want to see alot of the places in Tamriel that I haven't seen before..well since arena anyway, like Elsywer, or wherever it is that the Argonains are from (name escapes me), hell just to see an updated version of Hammerfell would be awesome.

 

[mango123]

Well, let's look at the TES games as they are now. Skyrim, for example, has:

• A generic, forgettable storyline
• Shitty, unsatisfying combat
• Huge, empty environments with nothing to do in them
• One-dimensional cardboard characters

In other words, TES would be perfect as an MMO. I can see why they're trying to make one. They're already halfway there. Just slap on multiplayer + a monthly subscription fee, and you're set.

LOLOL
yeah... the games are all right, no?

 

[aizdaman]

I think the biggest thing for me is the PvP. If they get that right, I could see myself picking this up and playing it. If not, I will pass.

 

[Dijeangenie]

^

this is wrong. wrong. wrong.

WoW was successful because of one thing.. MASS APPEAL.

They did not innovate ONE SINGLE FEATURE and this is coming from someone who has played EVERY SINGLE mmorpg even text based ones.

I think TES online will have a head-start on the mass appeal front, there should be large initial interest in the game from the huge elder scrolls fan base. Obviously if the game turns out bad then that's irrelevant, but if the game is decent or good I could see a lot of people playing it. You could argue the same thing for games like SWTOR, as obviously a lot of people like Star Wars as a franchise, which is true, but a lot of these people are not gamers, etc. Therefore Star Wars games do not have the same following as the Elder Scrolls series.

 

[diesbudt]

^

this is wrong. wrong. wrong.

WoW was successful because of one thing.. MASS APPEAL.

They did not innovate ONE SINGLE FEATURE and this is coming from someone who has played EVERY SINGLE mmorpg even text based ones.

So have I.

I played Runescape, Everquest, Asheron's call, WoW, Rift, Swtor, Conan, Warhammer, EQ2, AC2, Guild wars, Guild wars 2. To name the ones I remember off the top of my head.

And I personally saw the MASSIVE difference between EQ/AC/Runescape compared to WoW. It was uncanny and easily to point out the differences. EQ2 had plenty of differences too. But it just was not...fun compared to its predecessor or other Gen 1s.

Warcraft didn't success by mass appeal. If it did why did SWTOR fail? Why will Elder scrolls online probably fail as I predict?

Everquest, xp came from killing, exploring and more killing. Asheron's call XP came from basically killing. There were a few "quests" but they at the time were all just to go someplace and find some "unique" weapon or item. I could go on, but many first gen MMOs had this formula.

And yoru comment? I have heard of ultima online, I could have played it sure. But what I saw I didn't like. And you can think "its the graphics" when it isn't as I am a huge advocate of not caring about graphics but gameplay (yes I hate text games because those had way too many limitations in hindsight.)

Warcraft did innovate things. As did Rift and every other MMO. The amount they innovate is different/up to debate. But they did. And saying WoW didn't shows you didn't truly play the generation of MMOs before WoW, because I did for a while and totally see the differences. (not graphics, nor story as each game will have these differences and thus not changes in 'innovation')

And remember, MMOs was not a very popular genre of gaming before WoW. Since it required a computer as consoles were going very strong at the time, and most kids didn't play games on a computer. However changes WoW made to the genre, along with a standing title that could be played online, along with well written lore if you actually look about it pushed this game off from the get go.

But go ahead. Be biased. Believe what you want. I really do not mind you having your own opinion. But I will say that saying WoW had 0 innovation is an incorrect fact.

But back to my main topic. Taking a strong single player game, and changing its genre to not play it like its predecesor(s) and/or even making it into an MMO has time and time again showed to not be a popular decision. Thus what I say is correct. A Bad idea. I am not saying some people won't enjoy it. I am not saying anythign else other than it is 1 of a few reasons it will struggle/be bad and will require triage after the first few months of release to stabilize with whatever population they can muster (much like conan, warhammer, Swtor, etc.)

It is just like taking a linebacker and making him a running back in football. May sound like a cool idea at the time, but it usually never works out.

If they want to make an online game, it would be better to make a whole new story. New gameplay, new IP. have 0 connection to a series in which they will be removing the strongest points that elder scrolls games had.

*** and if you want to argue which MMo was most innovative, I would put my money on EQ. Yes, Ultima online was one of the few to bridge the gap from MuDs > MMOs, however a lot of what we see/use/do in current MMOs is based on teh fact how EQ translated the RPG genre from MuDs/Ultima online/similar time placed games that are not even MMOs.

 

[diesbudt]

I think TES online will have a head-start on the mass appeal front, there should be large initial interest in the game from the huge elder scrolls fan base. Obviously if the game turns out bad then that's irrelevant, but if the game is decent or good I could see a lot of people playing it. You could argue the same thing for games like SWTOR, as obviously a lot of people like Star Wars as a franchise, which is true, but a lot of these people are not gamers, etc. Therefore Star Wars games do not have the same following as the Elder Scrolls series.

A lot of gamers had mass appeal to SWTOR. It was everywhere. People talking about how excited they were on the WoW forums. On the Rift forums. On overall gaming forums/blogs. People who played consoles.

Mass appeal can only get you a step in the door. But it means nothing in the actual success of a game, in the longer run.

And as many people pointed out. It doesn't even look liek a elder scrolls game and looks generic and whatever else they said. Thus it may not even have mass appeal BECAUSE it is changing what made elder scrolls good.

 

[BenSkywalker]

MMOs are notorious for being difficult to get running in a stable fashion.

Bethesda is a collection of the people who make the least stable code in the world, and they then distill that down to get only the least stable portions of the least stable overall code base. Then they releases it, and if all goes well, ten years after release a good 85% of stuff in the game will work as intended.

Long time MMO vet with many titles under the belt, currently in an *alpha* of a MMO that is *FAR* more stable then any Bethesda singler player game I have ever played *at release*.

In any sort of gameplay transitioning discussion I think arguing against TES on this front is absurd, each TES game is a single player version of a MMO anyway, they just create some good raid content and they are good to go. It isn't remotely a stretch, hell it wouldn't even take much content modification. What I see as a major issue is having the dumbest coding school rejects in the world trying to get a stable game made for hundreds of thousands of people at once.

 

[Mandres]

Everyone agrees that a multiplayer Skyrim would be pretty cool.

But that's not what this is. This is a generic 3rd person, skill-clicking, exclamation-point questing WoW knockoff set in the Elder Scrolls world.

It's a blatant cash grab, and it's likely to be terrible. The developers know it too, which is why you don't hear much about it.

 

[Dijeangenie]

Everyone agrees that a multiplayer Skyrim would be pretty cool.

But that's not what this is. This is a generic 3rd person, skill-clicking, exclamation-point questing WoW knockoff set in the Elder Scrolls world.

It's a blatant cash grab, and it's likely to be terrible. The developers know it too, which is why you don't hear much about it.

I understand your view, as it worries me that you might be right, but it's not fair to call it a "cash grab" - if the MMO turns out to be elder scrolls wow, then the game will fail and they will lose money (MMOs are very expensive to make), so if they are aiming for a cash grab they will have to make it at least somewhat different from WOW.

 

[mizzou]

I would like to see a HEAVY focus on interactivity between factions. Even seperate each race into factions as well. So NORD would have like 3 different houses.

Each house branch can vow for dominance, and when you have dominance it will let you sell stuff for more $, buy stuff for less $ when you belong to the house, and it also will let you vote for diplomatic ventures such as.
1. Go to war with the (faction) on behalf of (faction)
2. Open trade with (faction) / Close trade with (Faction)
3. Close borders / Open borders

Each venture could change the way AI behaves, such as attacking or accepting neutral units (journeymen, caravans, traders) within their borders

But certain perks can apply to houses which are NOT in power, such as assassination missions, secret trade missions, etc.

I really want the PLAYER to make a difference, and TES:O should be dramatically different then any other WoW MMO clone

Will it happen, im hopeful, because more often these clones are not doing so hot in the market

And also, bring back BUBBLE CHAT OVER HEAD! I can't stand the counterstrike style GUI chat format, it negatively affects social interaction

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think TES online will have a head-start on the mass appeal front, there should be large initial interest in the game from the huge elder scrolls fan base. Obviously if the game turns out bad then that's irrelevant, but if the game is decent or good I could see a lot of people playing it. You could argue the same thing for games like SWTOR, as obviously a lot of people like Star Wars as a franchise, which is true, but a lot of these people are not gamers, etc. Therefore Star Wars games do not have the same following as the Elder Scrolls series.

This is true, but there was a base of gamers that were into KOTOR who were put off by turning it into an MMO. There were also other Star Wars games such as Battlefront and Republic Commando. So it was not like there were not gamers interested in the Star Wars universe.

TOR pretty much killed the star wars franchise as far as gaming goes. I really fear ES online will do the same thing to the Elder Scrolls franchise.

 

[Dijeangenie]

This is true, but there was a base of gamers that were into KOTOR who were put off by turning it into an MMO. There were also other Star Wars games such as Battlefront and Republic Commando. So it was not like there were not gamers interested in the Star Wars universe.

Yep - I meant to say that, although the elder scrolls games are considerably more popular than those games/ those games were already pretty old before the MMO came along.

 

[mango123]

So have I.

I played Runescape, Everquest, Asheron's call, WoW, Rift, Swtor, Conan, Warhammer, EQ2, AC2, Guild wars, Guild wars 2. To name the ones I remember off the top of my head.

And I personally saw the MASSIVE difference between EQ/AC/Runescape compared to WoW. It was uncanny and easily to point out the differences. EQ2 had plenty of differences too. But it just was not...fun compared to its predecessor or other Gen 1s.

Warcraft didn't success by mass appeal. If it did why did SWTOR fail? Why will Elder scrolls online probably fail as I predict?

Everquest, xp came from killing, exploring and more killing. Asheron's call XP came from basically killing. There were a few "quests" but they at the time were all just to go someplace and find some "unique" weapon or item. I could go on, but many first gen MMOs had this formula.

And yoru comment? I have heard of ultima online, I could have played it sure. But what I saw I didn't like. And you can think "its the graphics" when it isn't as I am a huge advocate of not caring about graphics but gameplay (yes I hate text games because those had way too many limitations in hindsight.)

Warcraft did innovate things. As did Rift and every other MMO. The amount they innovate is different/up to debate. But they did. And saying WoW didn't shows you didn't truly play the generation of MMOs before WoW, because I did for a while and totally see the differences. (not graphics, nor story as each game will have these differences and thus not changes in 'innovation')

And remember, MMOs was not a very popular genre of gaming before WoW. Since it required a computer as consoles were going very strong at the time, and most kids didn't play games on a computer. However changes WoW made to the genre, along with a standing title that could be played online, along with well written lore if you actually look about it pushed this game off from the get go.

But go ahead. Be biased. Believe what you want. I really do not mind you having your own opinion. But I will say that saying WoW had 0 innovation is an incorrect fact.

But back to my main topic. Taking a strong single player game, and changing its genre to not play it like its predecesor(s) and/or even making it into an MMO has time and time again showed to not be a popular decision. Thus what I say is correct. A Bad idea. I am not saying some people won't enjoy it. I am not saying anythign else other than it is 1 of a few reasons it will struggle/be bad and will require triage after the first few months of release to stabilize with whatever population they can muster (much like conan, warhammer, Swtor, etc.)

It is just like taking a linebacker and making him a running back in football. May sound like a cool idea at the time, but it usually never works out.

If they want to make an online game, it would be better to make a whole new story. New gameplay, new IP. have 0 connection to a series in which they will be removing the strongest points that elder scrolls games had.

*** and if you want to argue which MMo was most innovative, I would put my money on EQ. Yes, Ultima online was one of the few to bridge the gap from MuDs > MMOs, however a lot of what we see/use/do in current MMOs is based on teh fact how EQ translated the RPG genre from MuDs/Ultima online/similar time placed games that are not even MMOs.

No, no, no. You are just making generalizations about the way the "first gen" games are/were. There were plenty of quests.

I will stand by the fact that WoW didn't Innovate anything.

Star wars didn't have mass appeal. Star wars fans are not computer game fans, they are star wars fans.

I did play almost exclusively first gen MMO's. Don't tell me I didn't

Also, you never played Ultima Online so clearly you cannot comment on what it did and didn't innovate.

Many games are delving into the no levels or levels matter less idea and people seem to be very interested in this.

Ultima online was the first MMO to have this in a graphical context.

You also at first said that WoW was the most innovative game, now you are saying the you would put your money on the fact that EQ was most innovative. Which is it now?

I stand by what I said before and that is these games offer little to no innovation after the first two major games which were Ultima Online and Everquest. There is also a trend going back to level-less high risk persistant game worlds.

 

[mango123]

MMOs are notorious for being difficult to get running in a stable fashion.

Bethesda is a collection of the people who make the least stable code in the world, and they then distill that down to get only the least stable portions of the least stable overall code base. Then they releases it, and if all goes well, ten years after release a good 85% of stuff in the game will work as intended.

Long time MMO vet with many titles under the belt, currently in an *alpha* of a MMO that is *FAR* more stable then any Bethesda singler player game I have ever played *at release*.

In any sort of gameplay transitioning discussion I think arguing against TES on this front is absurd, each TES game is a single player version of a MMO anyway, they just create some good raid content and they are good to go. It isn't remotely a stretch, hell it wouldn't even take much content modification. What I see as a major issue is having the dumbest coding school rejects in the world trying to get a stable game made for hundreds of thousands of people at once.

Just curious if you by chance played Ultima Online pre Rennais and what you thought about it.

 

[Soundmanred]

It's already the best game ever. GOTY for 2013 and 2014. There's never been anything like it, and never will be anything like it ever again. It's that good.