Originally posted by Unreal024

Originally posted by Uhwop

I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself.  I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.

Looks like a joke to me.  You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.

On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version. 

I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.

 

And for the love of god.  Sandbox has nothing to do with quests.  Neither the presence of, nor lack of.  A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game.  The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well.  Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves.  I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium.  Because games without content suck.

Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.

Sandbox only means there are no objectives.  I don't have to do a quest to progress.  I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter.  I don't have to save the world.  It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay.  Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept.  It never even had anything to do with classes. 

 

I had this same discussion some months ago when it was first being rumored that TESO would be announced in May. Quite simply, themparks rely almost entirely on developer created content, while sandbox games do not. The developers create the rides and we ride them. In sandbox games developers create more tools that allow players to create their own content. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, open worlds or anything like that.

 

The Elder Scrolls is a themepark because outside of your character it doesn't allow you to create anything. You explore a landscape that you have no control over while raiding dungeons and doing quests created by the developers. Just because it's an open world that allows you to choose whatever quest or dungeon you wish to do (or not do) doesn't matter. It's still a themepark, your playing through content that the developers created. A game doesn't have to hold your hand a guide you through a linear series of events to be a themepark. I don't ever remember going to a themepark where I couldn't choose which rides or attractions I wanted to experience.

Nailed it.

Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.

It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.

Its the same thing that has happened to the meaning of "PaytoWin". If this trend of creating our own definitions continues, we may as well all be speaking in different foreign languages. 

People at Bethesda must be crying in their sleep over Zenimax giving rights to Elder Scrolls Online to Matt Firor.

Originally posted by aslan132

Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.

It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.

Its the same thing that has happened to the meaning of "PaytoWin". If this trend of creating our own definitions continues, we may as well all be speaking in different foreign languages. 

Sad to see a phrase like this get butchered from what we originally intended it to mean and have others try and create their own definition.

When we said "Sandbox" a couple of decades ago it meant able to do what we want, how we want. It was about freedom in game and an open world with little to no barriers. It was about creating our own story. Now you guys are trying to turn it into "You can build stuff". If that were the case the games like CoH were a sandbox because you can build your own instance, or Never Winters Nights since you created your own content. How about APB since you can design your own clothes and decals, create music, customize your cars.

I mean if all a sandbox means to you guys is "We can make our own content" then there are many games that fall into the sandbox category.

Quit trying to change the definition, last thing we need is for games like Lego universe to be tagged as sandbox even though it's basically a series of mini games.

Originally posted by aslan132

Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.

It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.

You have no idea what Sandbox means then.

Its about freedom. The ability to create and re-create your character how you wish, when you wish.

Not just about teraforming and house building

Failed out of the gate. Hurray MMO genre. Still trying to steal bad features from a dying game.

Originally posted by Larsa

"Making player housing work the way fans expect is too hard to implement in an MMO, so Zenimax has no plans to let you accrue real estate."

Oh, the irony.

there goes the sandbox dreams for all the fans......i already gave up on sandbox games lately.....i dont believe there will be a sandbox EVER again, but thats just mho.

To me UO was the only real sandbox in its early days......EQ try'd (by having housing and stuff) but failed at making a real SBox.

Originally posted by aslan132

Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO. 

So very wrong. A sandbox game means you're not forced into class or profession roles. Sandbox games are not scripted where you are the hero. They are games where you can play however you want or do whatever you want.

In themepark MMOs they put you down the path of the hero, where in a sandbox MMO you can be the hero, the villain, the shop keeper, the blacksmith, the hunter, the doctor, etc. Your role is only defined by your skills and what you choose to do with them.

A sandbox means that you can play however you want, like in an actual sandbox, where in a themepark they take you by the hand and lead you on a specific ride (like a rollercoaster).

Originally posted by djmtott

Originally posted by aslan132

Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO. 

So very wrong. A sandbox game means you're not forced into class or profession roles. Sandbox games are not scripted where you are the hero. They are games where you can play however you want or do whatever you want.

In themepark MMOs they put you down the path of the hero, where in a sandbox MMO you can be the hero, the villain, the shop keeper, the blacksmith, the hunter, the doctor, etc. Your role is only defined by your skills and what you choose to do with them.

A sandbox means that you can play however you want, like in an actual sandbox, where in a themepark they take you by the hand and lead you on a specific ride (like a rollercoaster).

It's sad I actually remember conversations in UO that were pretty funny. Housing didn't get mentioned till much later on when other MMO's didn't add it.

"Hey, this game is like a sandbox!"

"What do you mean?"

"Well think about being on a playground, you have a swing, a slide, a seesaw, and a sandbox. What do you do on a swing?"

"You swing"

"What do you do on a slide?"

"You slide"

"What do you do on a seesaw?"

"You seesaw, go up and down"

"What do you do in a sandbox?"

"I don't know"

"You do whatever you want!"

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by Larsa

"Making player housing work the way fans expect is too hard to implement in an MMO, so Zenimax has no plans to let you accrue real estate."

Oh, the irony.

there goes the sandbox dreams for all the fans......i already gave up on sandbox games lately.....i dont believe there will be a sandbox EVER again, but thats just mho.

To me UO was the only real sandbox in its early days......EQ try'd (by having housing and stuff) but failed at making a real SBox.

 

I think you may be right.  There will simply not be any AAA sandbox mmorpg's OR any themepark mmorpg's anywhere in the near future that have an ounce of creativity or thinking outside the box of typical mmo conventions.  Something that's not hyperbole and marketing promises.  Its extraordinarily depressing, actually.

The one game and IP that should have and could have done something creative and refreshing and this is what we get.  And we've got another 2faction therepark coming in Copernicus.  In all honesty, the more I think about it, and reflect on the TESO announcement, the more I realize the mmorpg genre and I have so little in common anymore, its probably time to give it up altogether.

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

I get it , some people like Mongolian barbaque. I for one think its stupid to pay someone to allow me to cook my own food.  This is the problem with the sand box argument. I pay money for developers and writers and authors to make amazing content that can challenge people, not to fight 13 year old gankers and have the game tell me "it's innovavite".  Anyone can make this game. It's like telling someone to read a book and giving them a book with blank pages.  Then tell them to write their own story, it'll be amazing. Well, I can do that on my own, why did I pay for the book? 

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.

So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.

So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.

LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG) 

UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series.  IT was new, that was all it had going for it.  why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games. 

It's an RPG, no one plays a rpg to go in and work for 8 hours to build a house or work for 10 hours and build a sawmill or spend their money to pay for guards to protect their house.  There's nothing fun to it, nothing rpg about, nothing adventerious about it

Now, if you tell me there's some system like dark cloud 2 (and what guild wars 2 is talking of implenting in an expansion) where as i adventure i can find special buildings to populate my guidl fortress, that  sounds like fun) but the simulation stuff is for simulation games. 

Hey, I love playing simearth, simcity civilivation, but they have their own genre of games.  They don't belong in RPGs.  Show me an RPG that has that in it? 

So like so many, you disparge people and call them "casual" gamers cause no one wants to spend 8 hours a day building houses in a game. or spend half the night camping out a site waiting for a respawn so you can get that brick for your cornerstone. Give me a break.  

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.

So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.

LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG) 

UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series.  IT was new, that was all it had going for it.  why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games. 

 

Sorry man, my burden of proof has been fulfilled. You made some claim that a sandbox can't be an RPG and done into an MMO. My jobs done on this. Good luck though :)

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.

So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.

LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG) 

UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series.  IT was new, that was all it had going for it.  why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games. 

 

Sorry man, my burden of proof has been fulfilled. You made some claim that a sandbox can't be an RPG and done into an MMO. My jobs done on this. Good luck though :)

LOL, So you have no argument.  Later.  MMOsimulations (lets stop calling them rpgs) is a niche, a very small niche. And, hey, i'm all for niches, but there just isn't enough room for more than one "show me yours" game in the MMO field of games.  

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by DarkPony

Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.

When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?

If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).

Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.

Because what you ask is not realistic.  Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience.  It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.  

Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form.  It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.  

lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.

So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.

LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG) 

UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series.  IT was new, that was all it had going for it.  why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games. 

 

Sorry man, my burden of proof has been fulfilled. You made some claim that a sandbox can't be an RPG and done into an MMO. My jobs done on this. Good luck though :)

LOL, So you have no argument.  Later.  

No need to my point was made and proven the fact that you simply don't like it doesn't change anything lol. But yeah, later man :)

What a gigantic waste of a good IP..

Why do companies keep giving us the same old crap with slightly different twists on things?

Oh wait i know because millinos of people keep buying them.. just look at the last few major MMORPGs...all basically the same with a few additions and twists on things.. if you guys keep buying these by the millions then companies keep making them.

Originally posted by dontadow

LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG) 

UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series.  IT was new, that was all it had going for it.  why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games. 

It's an RPG, no one plays a rpg to go in and work for 8 hours to build a house or work for 10 hours and build a sawmill or spend their money to pay for guards to protect their house.  There's nothing fun to it, nothing rpg about, nothing adventerious about it

Now, if you tell me there's some system like dark cloud 2 (and what guild wars 2 is talking of implenting in an expansion) where as i adventure i can find special buildings to populate my guidl fortress, that  sounds like fun) but the simulation stuff is for simulation games. 

Hey, I love playing simearth, simcity civilivation, but they have their own genre of games.  They don't belong in RPGs.  Show me an RPG that has that in it? 

So like so many, you disparge people and call them "casual" gamers cause no one wants to spend 8 hours a day building houses in a game. or spend half the night camping out a site waiting for a respawn so you can get that brick for your cornerstone. Give me a break.  

You're a moron. Get out of my internet.

Always knew that TES wouldn't work well in MMO environment (well, it would, but it would require a gaming company that isn't just a money grabbing whore), but I never would have believed they would fuck it up this big. TESO seems basically the opposite of TES games.

After reading all the info around the web I am thoroughly disappointed with the announcement, the only thing I was going to accept was an upgrade from Skyrim ( i.e. Skyrim mechanics upgraded to online with whatever limitations they needed to get it out of the door but it had to be this at core ). It just seems they are using the IP to make a theme park run of the mill game, that is just not the spirit of TES. :(

Ohh well I just hope some of the info are just old rumours and that they have reconsidered, this is not coming out for at least another 1.5years so wont worry about it for now, but not really hyped about it.