The game does not have "quest hubs" ala WoW. Not really a themepark if there are no hubs.

"Recreating the freedom Elder Scrolls players
expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics
Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be
impossible without changing the way that players
interact with the world. The studio came up with
something it calls “hubless” design to combat this
problem. Instead of the typical questing design
that MMO players intuitively recognize – go to
town, pick up quests, complete quests, return to
town for reward – The Elder Scrolls Online aims to
allow players to enjoy whatever piques their interest
as they wander the world, so long as you are
appropriately leveled."

Originally posted by star

Originally posted by Xzen

Suddenly I am uninterested in TESO. Too bad.

As am I. My interested was tempered extremely quickly after reading the article here (http://xbigygames.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-screenshots-and-details/) and the scans. I mean, it doesn't even LOOK like the Elder Scrolls.

 

edit: after having a chance to digest the information in the scans, I'm well and truly disgusted. THIS was the IP to do something new and bring sandbox-y-ness to the mainstream; but no, they pussyfooted out and are going for a WoW-clone lite with some Blethesda spin on it. Really frustrated atm.

Yeah, it doesn't even look like a WoW clone. It looks like a Rift clone. And you know what they say about the clone of a clone...

(Not disparaging Rift BTW, it's a decent enough game).

"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.

Love folk that think that an actual Elder Scroll game would be sandbox (MMOStrattegy Game) when Elder Scrolls have always been quest driven RPGs.  

I've never seen a sandbox MMORPG.  Because in order to be a sandbox game, you have to take the quests out.  Which are RPGs.  Can't imagine going downstairs to DM and tell my players, okay here we go, there's no quests, dungeons or adventures, you're going to build houses and attack one another.  This is the new RPG.  The pain of the book being thrown at me will hurt. 

Shame if this is going to look like this. I was expecting EVE Online with swords :(

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.

My question is this: If Zenimax has that attitude about Player Housing in MMOs, what other features have they made a similar decision on I wonder?

As a long time MMO Player I do not have "warm fuzzies" about TESO after reading this quote above.

My take on this news of TESO....  it is a sad day for the IP, for when it is all said and done I honestly believe many of it's greatest fans will quietly regret supporting this new MMO and unistall it from their computers.

And a minority will come here and lament the damaging of another good IP by attempting to make a modern MMO out of it.

What a shame.

(I honestly LOVE The Elder Scrolls RPG series... I just don't think there is a single Dev Team on this Planet that can turn TES into a MMO and do it justice.)

One of those wait and see games.  Read in that article they will not be using the radiant AI.  That pissed me off alittle.  Who the hell cares if the npcs need to sleep for the night.  It makes freaking sense in a TES game!  They pretty much killed the chance for me to create a thief character and do thiefy things. :(   Also,  classes are locked?  In a TES game.  Piss off, Bethesda.

Originally posted by Monorosso

The game does not have "quest hubs" ala WoW. Not really a themepark if there are no hubs.

 

Wrong. With or without quest hubs it can still be a Themepark. TESO is 100% themepark just like all of the Elder Scrolls games.

Originally posted by dontadow

Love folk that think that an actual Elder Scroll game would be sandbox (MMOStrattegy Game) when Elder Scrolls have always been quest driven RPGs.  

I've never seen a sandbox MMORPG.  Because in order to be a sandbox game, you have to take the quests out.  Which are RPGs.  Can't imagine going downstairs to DM and tell my players, okay here we go, there's no quests, dungeons or adventures, you're going to build houses and attack one another.  This is the new RPG.  The pain of the book being thrown at me will hurt. 

I agree that The Elder Scrolls is not a "pure" sandbox game, but one would think that an MMO spinoff would lean more towards that end of the spectrum. Also, I feel that when people mention sandbox in conjuction with The Elder Scrolls, some of them are refering to the open ended nature of the franchise. As in, it's classless and the world is completely open. It's quest driven, but I've played hundreds of hours of Oblivion and I've yet to complete the main questline. It's still non-linear (to a certain extent) in terms of how I want to approach the game. While it's not a full-fledged sandbox, it sure as hell isn't a themepark-esque RPG which is why so many people are concerned.

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by Monorosso

The game does not have "quest hubs" ala WoW. Not really a themepark if there are no hubs.

 

Wrong. With or without quest hubs it can still be a Themepark. TESO is 100% themepark just like all of the Elder Scrolls games.

How on earth is a game like Morrowind a themepark RPG? The world is completely unrestricted from the get go, I don't have to be level 10 to access the next zone, or go through the main story line quests to acquire my ship so I can visit other planets like in SWTOR. A themepark in the sense that almost nothing is is user created? Sure.

Lmao that hype didn't last long. From what we know, it is exactly the same old thing.

Well Back to the drawing board if you thought a WoWesk game was the way to go.  Maybe when you started production 4/5 years ago lmao. Be original don't copy.  GG

No Vampires? Wtf.

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. 

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.

 

I agree, these leaked articles look and sound a bit suspect. Who knows. From what I've seen thus far, I sure hope they're fabricated.

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. 

 

Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft.  Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures.  I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG. 

Single plaeyr rpgs center around a group of adventures saving the world or doing something great.  an MMORPG should be this, with more people.  That's it. Not a bunch of yahoos making the game about ganking folk in the notion of "superior" game play.  

Originally posted by dontadow

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. 

 

Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft.  Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures.  I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG. 

None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how. 

Examples:

Minecraft - Sandbox

GTA - Themepark

Final Fantasy - Themepark

UO - Sandbox

EQ - Themepark

WoW - Themepark

EvE - Sandbox

SWTOR - Themepark

The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.

I must admit, while there does seem to be a few things going for it, learning how themepark/wow-diku-clonish its going to be for this IP is a serious letdown.  Not only that, but it was really our only chance for something interesting in the AAA space, since everything else coming up has already been confirmed to be themepark wow clones as well AKA Copernicus, and I wouldn't even bet a skittle that EQNext won't be either.

Originally posted by dontadow

Love folk that think that an actual Elder Scroll game would be sandbox (MMOStrattegy Game) when Elder Scrolls have always been quest driven RPGs.  

I've never seen a sandbox MMORPG.  Because in order to be a sandbox game, you have to take the quests out.  Which are RPGs.  Can't imagine going downstairs to DM and tell my players, okay here we go, there's no quests, dungeons or adventures, you're going to build houses and attack one another.  This is the new RPG.  The pain of the book being thrown at me will hurt. 

Asheron's Call didn't have traditional quests for years.  Just a few epic objective(an iconic sword) and monthly story/dungeon updates.  AC was the best MMO to be made imo.

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by dontadow

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. 

 

Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft.  Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures.  I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG. 

None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how. 

 

Examples:

 

Minecraft - Sandbox

GTA - Themepark

Final Fantasy - Themepark

UO - Sandbox

EQ - Themepark

WoW - Themepark

EvE - Sandbox

SWTOR - Themepark

 

The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.

So why try to make a whole nother genre about this game.  LEts' first not call first player game's sandbox, mindcraft. They have genres.  Sim games and similar games have existed well before MMOs.  I love them, I don't want them in my MMO.

Which is my problem with sanbox to begin with. It's not a subsection of mmo, it's a feature that can be in an mmo that, truthfully, can one day be placed in any MMO.  Making a house shoud not be an entire subsection of mmos, and yet so many people come in these forums talking the praise of the sndbox, which, has only been done succesffully in 2 games.  

One of those games, Eve, is the antiRPG.  The other, was a poor example of its single player reprensentative.

A feature, down the line, in Guild Wars 2 is suppose to allow players to of guilds to build small training grounds by collecting rewards in wvw and pve. Is this sandbox.  It's very dark cloud 2ish.  Hell is dark cloud 2 sandbox.

It just feels artificial that folk attempt to make sandbox a big thing, when essence its a feature, that is hard to pull off without pvp ganking and deminishing the fun of others.  

I could go for a dark cloud 2 approach, actually one of my favorite games.  

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by dontadow

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. 

 

Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft.  Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures.  I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG. 

None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how. 

 

Examples:

 

Minecraft - Sandbox

GTA - Themepark

Final Fantasy - Themepark

UO - Sandbox

EQ - Themepark

WoW - Themepark

EvE - Sandbox

SWTOR - Themepark

 

The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.

So why try to make a whole nother genre about this game.  LEts' first not call first player game's sandbox, mindcraft. They have genres.  Sim games and similar games have existed well before MMOs.  I love them, I don't want them in my MMO.

Which is my problem with sanbox to begin with. It's not a subsection of mmo, it's a feature that can be in an mmo that, truthfully, can one day be placed in any MMO.  Making a house shoud not be an entire subsection of mmos, and yet so many people come in these forums talking the praise of the sndbox, which, has only been done succesffully in 2 games.  

One of those games, Eve, is the antiRPG.  The other, was a poor example of its single player reprensentative.

A feature, down the line, in Guild Wars 2 is suppose to allow players to of guilds to build small training grounds by collecting rewards in wvw and pve. Is this sandbox.  It's very dark cloud 2ish.  Hell is dark cloud 2 sandbox.

It just feels artificial that folk attempt to make sandbox a big thing, when essence its a feature, that is hard to pull off without pvp ganking and deminishing the fun of others.  

I could go for a dark cloud 2 approach, actually one of my favorite games.  

Just FYI I actualy enjoy both sandbox and themepark elements and games. I'm just annoyed that so many people don't know what makes something a sandbox. What is required to play in a real sandbox? Imagination and sand (to build stuff with).

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.