Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2 | Marvel Heroes | World of Warcraft

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,736,351 Users Online:0
Games:713  Posts:6,174,047
Zenimax Online Studios | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 04/04/14)  | Pub:Bethesda Softworks
Distribution: | Retail Price:$59.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC Mac Playstation 4 Xbox One | Out of date info? Let us know!

Elder Scrolls Online Forum » General Discussion » ES series gameplay history

12 posts found
  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 6:55:39 AM#1

My main concern with this game.  This company does not have an even remotely decent history when it comes to balance and intelligent gameplay systems.  Modders have been bailing them out of bad game design decisions for a decade.  Hell, I just reinstalled Skyrim and had to install a dozen different mods just to fix some of the incredibly poorly concieved gameplay, balance, and character bulding designs of the vanilla game... and Skyrim is a game that had a decade of previous experience in showing them what NOT to do.  Oblivion was an even bigger trainwreck in that department.

They're fantastic at building worlds to explore in and giving the tools to their playerbase to expand the game, but they are just terrible when it comes to theorycrafting gameplay balance and implementing non-exploitative and challenging gameplay systems.

In ESO, there is no-one to bail them out.  Players are going to have to deal with whatever dumb game design decisions they come up with in what is going to be a semi-competitive environment.    I just get the distinct feeling that this game is going to have some really poorly thought out mechanics.

  Nitth

Elite Member

Joined: 7/29/10
Posts: 3190

Magic Propels my Rolly Chair.

2/12/13 6:59:33 AM#2


Originally posted by Draemos
My main concern with this game.  This company does not have an even remotely decent history when it comes to balance and intelligent gameplay systems.  Modders have been bailing them out of bad game design decisions for a decade.

They're fantastic at building worlds to explore in and giving the tools to their playerbase to expand the game, but they are just terrible when it comes to theorycrafting gameplay balance and implementing non-exploitative and challenging gameplay systems.

In ESO, there is no-one to bail them out.  Players are going to have to deal with whatever dumb game design decisions they come up with in what is going to be a semi-competitive environment.    I just get the distinct feeling that this game is going to have some really poorly thought out mechanics.


In regards to TeS game "balance': who gives a shit there single player games?

In regards to Teso: There not the same dudes developing.


TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development

  nilden

Novice Member

Joined: 4/26/05
Posts: 886

2/12/13 7:03:02 AM#3

Zenimax is making this not Bethesda, they have made exactly zero games ever. There is no track record for Zenimax Online Studios.

If you want to talk about how the Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim should be taken into account with the current production go nuts.

How to post links. Check it Archeage
LoveMinecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 7:03:37 AM#4
Originally posted by Nitth

 


Originally posted by Draemos
My main concern with this game.  This company does not have an even remotely decent history when it comes to balance and intelligent gameplay systems.  Modders have been bailing them out of bad game design decisions for a decade.

 

They're fantastic at building worlds to explore in and giving the tools to their playerbase to expand the game, but they are just terrible when it comes to theorycrafting gameplay balance and implementing non-exploitative and challenging gameplay systems.

In ESO, there is no-one to bail them out.  Players are going to have to deal with whatever dumb game design decisions they come up with in what is going to be a semi-competitive environment.    I just get the distinct feeling that this game is going to have some really poorly thought out mechanics.


 

In regards to TeS game "balance': who gives a shit there single player games?

In regards to Teso: There not the same dudes developing.

Same parent company. The process will be the same, and involve many of the same people and decisions.

Your single player game comment reaks of an absolute digust in having pride in game design.  For instance, I wouldn't design an armor cap into Skyrim that blantantly favors light armor regardless of whether the game is single player or multiplayer.  I wouldn't put bandits in glass armor at any level because they are god damn bandits.  These are just basic poor game design decisions that speak of a weak understanding of game theory.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

2/12/13 7:05:05 AM#5
Lol yeah because rage, brink and dishonoured are exactly like tes
  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 7:05:43 AM#6
Originally posted by nilden

Zenimax is making this not Bethesda, they have made exactly zero games ever. There is no track record for Zenimax Online Studios.

If you want to talk about how the Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim should be taken into account with the current production go nuts.

Zenimax media owns both.  Their will be cross collaberation and game design spillover.  You don't hand the ESO title to a team with no experience.

  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 7:06:37 AM#7
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Lol yeah because rage, brink and dishonoured are exactly like tes

Rage brink and dishonoured are not Elder Scrolls titles.  I've only played Dishonored, but it's pretty well known that game is not exactly a paragon of well designed game balance... which is fine, because that's the type of game that is.

  Nitth

Elite Member

Joined: 7/29/10
Posts: 3190

Magic Propels my Rolly Chair.

2/12/13 7:14:22 AM#8


Originally posted by Draemos
Same parent company. The process will be the same, and involve many of the same people and decisions.

They hired a new development team. If the design was enforced from the top then they would of hired contract workers instead of people that can actually think.


Your single player game comment reaks of an absolute digust in having pride in game design.

Balance. I hate it im not gona lie, in single player games it detracts from making some really cool stuff. Different story for online experiences.

Like really. A dragon could stomp you in skyrim calculated from its size and force generated from its limbs/jaws.


For instance, I wouldn't design an armor cap into Skyrim that blantantly favors light armor regardless of whether the game is single player or multiplayer.

Every Armor type is viable in skyrim..what are you on about?


I wouldn't put bandits in glass armor at any level because they are god damn bandits.
Why not? Lets have every bandit generically have leather armor and daggers? Wheres the balance in that?


These are just basic poor game design decisions that speak of a weak understanding of game theory.

Which game theory book are you reading from. I should buy it so i have the definitive education.


TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development

  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 7:29:13 AM#9
Originally posted by Nitth

 


For instance, I wouldn't design an armor cap into Skyrim that blantantly favors light armor regardless of whether the game is single player or multiplayer.

Every Armor type is viable in skyrim..what are you on about?

Please do like 5 minutes of research and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.  The benefit of heavy armor was completely negated by the fact that you could reach Armor cap in something as light as Elven armor.  At that point, you where dealing with a lot of negatives associated with heavy armor while receiving very few benefits.  This made light armor significantly better than heavy armor, which is why almost every "balance" mod in Skyrim significantly changes the armor fomula and often the perk system associated to armors.  That's to say nothing of the weird progression curve it followed where by adding points towards the end of the cap range was significantly more powerful than the beginning points.  (ie going from 50 to 150 armor cap was significantly less powerful than going from 450-550).  It was just a poorly conceived system.

 


I wouldn't put bandits in glass armor at any level because they are god damn bandits.
Why not? Lets have every bandit generically have leather armor and daggers? Wheres the balance in that?

Scaling low quality enemies was a heavily railed against aspect of Oblivion that was panned by almost every reviewer in existance(and it's why they altered it heavily in Fallout 3 and Skyrim).  It broke immersion and gave the game bland feeling of not having a level of progression from easier to harder areas and enemies.  You don't balance a generic bandit to be a match for a level 50 character, you push the player into a new area that presents them with a more impressive challenge.  Again, a poorly conceived system.  But atleast they did learn from that one.

 

Seriously though, we are obviously on two different planes of what we consider acceptable.  I see no point in further continuing this conversation.

  Nitth

Elite Member

Joined: 7/29/10
Posts: 3190

Magic Propels my Rolly Chair.

2/12/13 7:49:03 AM#10


Originally posted by DraemosSeriously though, we are obviously on two different planes of what we consider acceptable.  I see no point in further continuing this conversation.

Alright, I wont debate it any further. But let me just quickly reply to these last comments.



Please do like 5 minutes of research and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.  The benefit of heavy armor was completely negated by the fact that you could reach Armor cap in something as light as Elven armor.  At that point, you where dealing with a lot of negatives associated with heavy armor while receiving very few benefits.  This made light armor significantly better than heavy armor, which is why almost every "balance" mod in Skyrim significantly changes the armor fomula and often the perk system associated to armors.  That's to say nothing of the weird progression curve it followed where by adding points towards the end of the cap range was significantly more powerful than the beginning points.  (ie going from 50 to 150 armor cap was significantly less powerful than going from 450-550).  It was just a poorly conceived system.

I've finished the game on:

An S&B Heavy Armored (tank)
An Duel dagger light Armor (assassin/thief)
An Spellcaster Cloth Wearing (Mage)

You could "theory craft" all day long about systems that only you would see (and be bothered by) but having played and completed the game at various difficulties with all those characters i can say it was great fun and only reaffirmed that it was a good purchase.

That's the true battle with game development: having fun interesting systems that as a whole lead to a good solid product. I think Bethesda did that with Skyrim.


Scaling low quality enemies was a heavily railed against aspect of Oblivion that was panned by almost every reviewer in existance(and it's why they altered it heavily in Fallout 3 and Skyrim).  It broke immersion and gave the game bland feeling of not having a level of progression from easier to harder areas and enemies.  You don't balance a generic bandit to be a match for a level 50 character, you push the player into a new area that presents them with a more impressive challenge.  Again, a poorly conceived system.  But atleast they did learn from that one.

That's where i think we think differently. I don't favor a system, But I treat every games systems as unique rules to abide by.

That system, Will always lead to a challenge no matter what your fighting. Progression comes in with how much you expand your skill set not how much vertical progression you achieve.


TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development

  Draemos

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/10
Posts: 1457

 
OP  2/12/13 8:12:12 AM#11
Originally posted by Nitth

 


Originally posted by DraemosSeriously though, we are obviously on two different planes of what we consider acceptable.  I see no point in further continuing this conversation.

Alright, I wont debate it any further. But let me just quickly reply to these last comments.

 

 


Please do like 5 minutes of research and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.  The benefit of heavy armor was completely negated by the fact that you could reach Armor cap in something as light as Elven armor.  At that point, you where dealing with a lot of negatives associated with heavy armor while receiving very few benefits.  This made light armor significantly better than heavy armor, which is why almost every "balance" mod in Skyrim significantly changes the armor fomula and often the perk system associated to armors.  That's to say nothing of the weird progression curve it followed where by adding points towards the end of the cap range was significantly more powerful than the beginning points.  (ie going from 50 to 150 armor cap was significantly less powerful than going from 450-550).  It was just a poorly conceived system.

 

I've finished the game on:

An S&B Heavy Armored (tank)
An Duel dagger light Armor (assassin/thief)
An Spellcaster Cloth Wearing (Mage)

You could "theory craft" all day long about systems that only you would see (and be bothered by) but having played and completed the game at various difficulties with all those characters i can say it was great fun and only reaffirmed that it was a good purchase.

That's the true battle with game development: having fun interesting systems that as a whole lead to a good solid product. I think Bethesda did that with Skyrim.

 


Scaling low quality enemies was a heavily railed against aspect of Oblivion that was panned by almost every reviewer in existance(and it's why they altered it heavily in Fallout 3 and Skyrim).  It broke immersion and gave the game bland feeling of not having a level of progression from easier to harder areas and enemies.  You don't balance a generic bandit to be a match for a level 50 character, you push the player into a new area that presents them with a more impressive challenge.  Again, a poorly conceived system.  But atleast they did learn from that one.

 

That's where i think we think differently. I don't favor a system, But I treat every games systems as unique rules to abide by.

That system, Will always lead to a challenge no matter what your fighting. Progression comes in with how much you expand your skill set not how much vertical progression you achieve.

 

Viability =/ good game design.  You could run around naked with a bow & arrow and sneak and be completely viable and have a good time doing it... Sticking arrows in enemy heads while they look around confused asking "is anyone there?" That's all good and fun, but its shit game design.

  Zairu

Novice Member

Joined: 1/09/09
Posts: 493

Yes, this is a personal attack.

2/12/13 8:23:41 AM#12
Originally posted by Nitth

 

 

I don't favor a system, But I treat every games systems as unique rules to abide by.

 

 

+1