Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

Considering how bad ui was in Skyrim unless you got mods I think ppl have a valid concerns.

And I agree with Fir3line. I expect so much whining.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

You can have a bigger and better game if designed solely for the PC than if you have to design it for the already years outdated consoles.

Other than that, absolutely nothing wrong with consoles at all.

Outside of the fact they completely stall gaming until their newer upgraded versions are released 7-10 years later.

Originally posted by DarkPony

In addition I'm hoping for claimable territories, player homes and compelling world pvp...

 

I'd be ok with instanced housing, like EQ2. Don't get me wrong, I loved the player housing in SWG, but I also detested the cluttered landscapes around the player hubs. If they could find a way to blend the two I'd be all for it. Housing around the cities in SWG was like trying to shove ten pounds of shit into a five pound sock.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

basically the debate revolves around the fact that the lowest common denominator is really really low.

It would be a disaster and would only serve to ruin their good name.  You can see the ridiculous expectations in this thread.

Elder Scrolls combat is fairly shallow. People aren't too hard on it in the single player game because they're constantly at awe of the scope of the game (for a single player game).  We're talking Diablo 2 level of combat, really basic. 

As a single player game, they can do things like . . . level the rest of the world as you level.  This way it retains it's multi-linear style of progression, but add other people and then what? I have a feeling it's going to lose a lot of its openess.

"Make it so you can pick up anything!"  The only people who say this are people who clearly don't understand people (or even pay attention to their own actions).  Did you collect a ton of stuff recently in Skyrim?  Probably yes.  If everything could be picked up, how long do you think it would take 1000 players to pick the world clean?  And they would, some would do it just to grief.  Which would leave Bethesda with the option of respawning everything or limiting what you can pick up (and making those things respawn anyway).

And in terms of general questing, I'm confused as to how people can bemoan WoW's quests while enjoying a game like Skyrim where every quest is either go fetch, kill X rats, go talk to so and so, or powerful item X is in this dungeon!"

I'm not saying it would be a bad mmo, what I'm saying is that it won't be TES or anything remotely close to what the excited people are imagining it's going to be.

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

You can have a bigger and better game if designed solely for the PC than if you have to design it for the already years outdated consoles.

Other than that, absolutely nothing wrong with consoles at all.

Outside of the fact they completely stall gaming until their newer upgraded versions are released 7-10 years later.

Its actually easier to develop for hardware that never changes and is universal rather than to scale for any infinite number of combinations of hardware. Not only that, but games for the PC aren't designed specifically for the best of the best hardware anyway because that would severely limit the number of customers able to play that software. A very small percentage of the population is wealthy enough or tech savvy enough to have high-end machines.

That having been said, there are also licensing fees involved with making console software, so as far as development goes, each has its advantages and disadvantages over the other. Neither one 'stalls' anything.

Oh jeez... Elder Scrolls was very good when it comes to exploring, medicore in its combat and worse at its storyline.

Now, what are MMORPGs main core? Story and character progression. Bethesda showed since day 1 that character progression is a mess-up in TES when you have things like crafting. Besides that it is really good.

On top of that, a TES-MMO with an original TES-Story will be super flat. Even more flat than the non-existing story of TERA.

So whats it gonna be in the end, when you have explored every corner of the map? Quit it?

If they will not hire another company which is famous for their indepth story-telling I am so gonna skip that title.

Edit: Besides talking of "Ruining that good name" - that name is already beein ruined by the release of the kiddy-fanboy-ish Skyrim which had nothing more than a mediocre good grafic and some landscape to explore. Everything else was dull and overall Skyrim had literally ZERO replay-value.

Edit2: Did you check the Baldurs Gate Site? They are release something brand-new today to their franchise - again like said: Talking of "Ruining a good name". If they bring out a modern MMORPG aswell, I am so gonna quit that PC-gaming scene...

If you have experience as a gamer literally since day1 - you know how miserable pc-gaming got since Blizzards WoW showed the world how you can milk players and serve them unfinished products - and hey, they dont care, they keep consuming and consuming. NOW, there seems a slight turning point. BUT if this continues in the future like NOW - there is so no hope for quality games again.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

You can have a bigger and better game if designed solely for the PC than if you have to design it for the already years outdated consoles.

Other than that, absolutely nothing wrong with consoles at all.

Outside of the fact they completely stall gaming until their newer upgraded versions are released 7-10 years later.

Its actually easier to develop for hardware that never changes and is universal rather than to scale for any infinite number of combinations of hardware. Not only that, but games for the PC aren't designed specifically for the best of the best hardware anyway because that would severely limit the number of customers able to play that software. A very small percentage of the population is wealthy enough or tech savvy enough to have high-end machines.

That having been said, there are also licensing fees involved with making console software, so as far as development goes, each has its advantages and disadvantages over the other. Neither one 'stalls' anything.

Console games are also generally limted to the data size of one disc, excluding possibly some downloads. Either way there is a limit. PC-only games don't have that restriction.

---

Originally posted by ChuvarHrama
Another good company going down. 

---

Well end of a good series as solo game gowing DOWN THE DRAIN.

At least Bethesda is not run by a screwup company like EA or some other publisher.

Zenimax and bethesda are on same side as how bethesda want there games to be developed and published.

But this news don't make me HAPPY AT ALL its prolly worsed mistake BETHESDA takes in there whole history.

But future offcorse will tell if im right or not.

Elder Scrolls + MMO = WOOT!!!

Originally posted by 4bsolute

Edit: Besides talking of "Ruining that good name" - that name is already beein ruined by the release of the kiddy-fanboy-ish Skyrim which had nothing more than a mediocre good grafic and some landscape to explore. Everything else was dull and overall Skyrim had literally ZERO replay-value.

I dont' really share that opinion at all. Skyim has as much replayability as Morrowind or Oblvion. Heck, with the exception of those stupid arrows pointing where you should go, it plays very much like morrowind and more like oblvion.

Skyrim's main issue, besides the wonky interface and the usula bugs, is that its stories don't play out well. They either feel too short or once they end it's not reflected in many of the characters of the world. I still have characters commenting on story items that I finished long ago. Such as me getting dialogue choices about the war which clearly shold be over in my game.

But as far as replayability? I have 229 Hours played with my main more than halfway through 60 and two other characters I've been working on.

If one actually plays the game as "a role playing game" then your characers will be doign different things and perhaps not doing other things. Playing the game with charaters with different wants, needs and motivations is what makes any of these games "replayable".

 I HATE DRAGONS!

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

You act like the old gamers are dead.  Dude, it's been ten years.  I'm still alive.  I'm still in my 20's.  We are all still here, we have just been waiting.  Millions played UO.  Millions wait.

lol, I'm about to be 45, I suppose I am an old gamer. And if yyou are still in your 20s then maybe twice on you.

Take my comments for what they are not what to want to attribute to them.

Skyrim is successful for what it is. However, remember that many people who buy it are playing it for its main story and the quests and don't go exploring. There are two people at work who gave up on skyrim as they said it was a bit too open for their tastes. One likes Amular much better. I've read others who slam it because the main story was over so quickly. People are buying it because they are either Elder Scrolls fans, fans of Oblvion or they see the grand adventure only to find out that the main thrust is exploring.

I'm not acting like "anyone's dead". I'm looking at what is selling, what is not and what people are saying about these games, In many cases AWAY from forums.

Sorry but never ever judge anything by forums. Forums are a vocal minority of players. They are the players who are very passionate about games and who dedicate a great deal of time to them. Are you aware that there are not only huge amounts of people who don't post on forums but who also don't go to game forums?

I get messages from people all the time who say they are lurkers but never post on forums. I've met people who play wow or lotro who have never hear dof this site or massivlely.

If we were to judge any game by forums then WoW would be a niche game. Yet, despite its losing player base, still managed to garner many millions of players. Yet if we listen to these sites then we would wonder if it was a success at all given the vitriol toard themepark games.

So sure, UO and SWG are considered great sandbox mmo's. But that was another time with a much much smaller customer base.

Just because people like them and just because they are considered great doesn't mean that he multiple millions of people are going to like sandbox games. Just because skyrim sold extremely well doesn't mean that everyy person who bought it loved it for its sandbox elements. Of course that's the magic of it. One can eschew many of the sandbox elelments and just do the quests if one wants.

And besides there is a palpable difference in playing a solo sandbox game and being put in a world with other players playing a sandbox mmo. I suspect there is cross over but not as much as we might like.

Originally posted by punkrock
I like the idea of it, i just hope they make it on ps3 and the 360. And yes it could handle it just fine.

No, it couldn't.

Edit: Sure, you want a heavily instanced themepark like DCU, the consoles can handle it.

You want a large open world  the size of Oblivion or Skyrim, it ain't happening on consoles. Unless you consider being able to hold maybe a dozen players an "mmo".

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Skyrim is successful for what it is. However, remember that many people who buy it are playing it for its main story and the quests and don't go exploring. There are two people at work who gave up on skyrim as they said it was a bit too open for their tastes. One likes Amular much better. I've read others who slam it because the main story was over so quickly. People are buying it because they are either Elder Scrolls fans, fans of Oblvion or they see the grand adventure only to find out that the main thrust is exploring.

You just dont know how much that comment just shows how far good games made by gamers has fallen from grace.

I dont think Bethesda should jump onto the MMO bandwagon, i do think they kind of see dollar signs everywhere BUT people have been asking for a multiplayer option for there games for years i do think they should have included a LAN function into there games a long time ago.  As far as most of there games being launched buggy etc in my personaly oppinion i think they kind of do that on purpose...... Simply because the main draw to the ES series for most of the fans are the player made MODs that churn out by the hundreds a day for everything from hats to complete world revamps with some awsome high rez textures etc.

Please let it not be a ThemePark...

Originally posted by djmtott

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Fir3line
Im just waiting for them.to say its gonna be available on consoles and everyone goes ballistic

I never got the whole console vs PC debate.

Its as silly as console vs console vs console.

I'm amazed at some people's inability to like more than one thing at a time.

You can have a bigger and better game if designed solely for the PC than if you have to design it for the already years outdated consoles.

Other than that, absolutely nothing wrong with consoles at all.

Outside of the fact they completely stall gaming until their newer upgraded versions are released 7-10 years later.

Its actually easier to develop for hardware that never changes and is universal rather than to scale for any infinite number of combinations of hardware. Not only that, but games for the PC aren't designed specifically for the best of the best hardware anyway because that would severely limit the number of customers able to play that software. A very small percentage of the population is wealthy enough or tech savvy enough to have high-end machines.

That having been said, there are also licensing fees involved with making console software, so as far as development goes, each has its advantages and disadvantages over the other. Neither one 'stalls' anything.

Console games are also generally limted to the data size of one disc, excluding possibly some downloads. Either way there is a limit. PC-only games don't have that restriction.

Many console games these days have a lot of data that has to be installed as well, meaning a portion of whats on the disk is compressed. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future console games come on multiple disks and the entire game has to be installed completely, using the disk only as a method of copy protection similarly to PCs.

The differences between the two have been shrinking. Hell, you can even swap out some hardware in consoles these days. I've considered buying a bigger, faster HDD for my PS3 but, I dont play as many console games as I used to.

I do miss having Linux installed on my PS3. WIsh they hadn't removed that function.