Elder Scrolls Online

[nilzark]

$200 million budget! P99 still more fun. Go figure.

[Lune]

Hard to take this guy seriously when the very first sentence of the article rattles off four different console FPS's and "fantastic" in the same sentence. One of them is even published by Electronic Fucking Arts.

Funny that he would rail against the subscription model, considering this dipshit would need an Xbox Live subscription to play the console titles he listed online.

TESO has legitimate criticisms, but he listed none of them specifically.

[MrSparkle001]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about.

A further complication is that Bethesda isn’t exactly famous for releasing bug free single player games, so when they make the jump to an MMO, longtime fans are incredibly wary from the start, wondering if the game will even work at launch.He also says he's not a big PC MMO guy.

It's not a Bethesda game idiot, and before even saying that he says "I’m not normally a big PC MMO guy."

So the guy who wrote the article is not a big PC MMO fan, doesn't know who's developing the game and is basically just upset that the game will have a subscription. The entire article is pretty much about how he doesn't like the subscription model.

The one paragraph in the article with any substance is this:

While obviously any game is going to produce a wide array of opinions, the general feeling I’ve read across countless message boards and forums is that the experience is simply average. While it does feel like a traditional Elder Scrolls game, there’s little benefit to the actual MMO aspect of it. Most of the game is played in single player mode anyway, but because it is an MMO, it looks visually worse than its predecessor, Skyrim, in many ways.

Yeah it did feel a lot like single player. Single player with other people populating the world doing their own thing too. I like that. I actually dislike EQ's design where you are forced to rely on others to do anything, and most MMOs since EQ have featured better single player experiences. Why is ESO being criticized for that? Plus we haven't seen much at all of the end game which is where most players will wind up spending their time.

tl;dr: bad article is bad.

[Auvdar]

Bad article, didn't point out what's really wrong with ESO. Gameplay, the complete lack of immersion (at least for me, and most everyone who I played it with.), hell even the Lore has been butchered in a lot of places.

And to think this game won't go F2P after 6 months to a year is a pipe dream. The only good part of that article is the title [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nips]

To be fair, what exactly is this guy supposed to write about? He can't comment on the actual gameplay of the beta so its gotta be a tough article to write.
And I can't believe they spent 200 million on that game... wow. I wonder how much skyrim or morrowind cost to make. If its even half of that 200 million I will cry.

[citizen1080]

Zenimax stated they have not spent 200m on the game

[Nips]

Originally Posted by citizen1080 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Zenimax stated they have not spent 200m on the game

I don't think 200m is completely implausible if you consider that it took 150 million to make SWG. I wonder why it costs so much to make these mmorpgs? I found a few different sources (idk about reliability), but they claim the cost to produce skyrim was only 5-15 million... crazy. Seems so risky to make these mmorpgs, I hope some of these companies are actually profitable with these things otherwise it seems like it'll be a dying genre if you consider the lack of success in the mmorpg world for like the last... whenever WoW came out.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Nips [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think 200m is completely implausible if you consider that it took 150 million to make SWG.

How much of that you think is licensing?

[joppykid]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about.





The one paragraph in the article with any substance is this:



Yeah it did feel a lot like single player. Single player with other people populating the world doing their own thing too. I like that. I actually dislike EQ's design where you are forced to rely on others to do anything, and most MMOs since EQ have featured better single player experiences. Why is ESO being criticized for that? Plus we haven't seen much at all of the end game which is where most players will wind up spending their time.

tl;dr: bad article is bad.

Funny thing is that the developers have said over and over they want it to feel like a single player game lol. this guy is clueless.

[Thugnuts]

I'm not a huge ES guy, but I ran around in Morrowind and Oblivion a couple years ago, just to have a peak. The one thing I thought to myself the entire time was "Gee, this would be better if it was multiplayer."

As for subs model for MMO, it's the best option. F2P/store games are all shit in my experience. I want to win by playing the game and defeating the mechanics in cooperation with other human beings, not by whipping out my fucking VISA card whenever I need an item upgrade.

That said, I do know one gamer who is adamant about never paying a subscription for a game he bought retail. He says that $15/month or whatever for unlimited play is greedy, but has no problem dropping $120 a week on booze and cigarettes.