No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact". However, MMOs vary widely. My first (and the one I grouped in by far the most, ironically) was Asheron's Call (1999). It had very nearly zero "group content", especially at launch. No raids. No group-only dungeons. Almost no quests which required a group to complete, even on-level. No "classes", per se, so no fixed group roles.What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.
I'm arguing that you have a skewed idea of what a traditional MMO is as it's primarily based on MMOs that follow Everquest's style (popularized/mainstreamed by World of Warcraft).Aside from the fact that you limit your definition by "tripple A MMOs", MMOs stand for massively multi-player online.
1) you need a LOT of players (in the hundreds/thousands).
2) they need to play together (aka: in the same space).
3) the game needs to be online (aka: not LAN).
That's it. Seeing it any differently just restricts your vision.
My comments are directed primarily to how the game mechanics in ESO differs significantly and unexpectedly from traditional games that use the MMO label
That's like suggesting that Heroes and Generals isn't really a traditional First-Person shooter and it would be misleading to call it that because it doesn't have a single-player campaign like "traditional FPSs" like Call of Duty and Battlefield (oh, the irony on that one).Where'd you get the idea that people called it a "traditional MMO" in the first place?And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.
How is GuildWars 2 in your list of "Tranditional MMO" when the game's mechanics and systems are the most unique of the genre?
Your only argument is how much personal progress you can do in a group. Doesn't that seem strangely insignificant to you?
No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact".What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.
^ Another achiever pronouncing their subjective judgements on behalf of the rest of the player base.And that's the problem with MMO's once you leave a zone the zone is now worthless for you.
Someday maybe they will make a MMO that will have all zones replayable, maybe someday
Yes it is completely 100% viable to level any character in ESO 1-50 EXCLUSIVELY in groups.
You simply have to role play, do the quests together and make sure that you choose the same options.
Its more of a fantasy simulator than you may like, but think about it, if you have a quest to kill someone or save someone and you share that with another person.
If you kill them and they save them, how could you possibly expect the same outcome? You have taken different paths.
There is a VAST majority (over 95%) of quests that can be completed in a group with no problems as long as you play the game the way it was designed and not how you feel it should be.
Edit: There are people ON THIS FORUM that have leveled doing nothing but groups
With this in mind, we'd have to establish what you consider group content. Frankly, that could vary in definition as well.In this limited sense, applying the label to ESO is misleading because group content is not a viable way to currently level your character to 50 (pre-VR content).
Do you agree? Are you finding it viable to level your character to 50 via group content?
The amount of obtuseness (excepting the first poster) in this thread is ridiculous. If you have no problem calling an online game an MMO if it REQUIRES you to play single player content 99% of the time, then there is nothing to say.
In reply to the intelligent post of the first responder, I hope that they will make adjustments to xp sooner rather than later. Because they are losing my sub and most of my friends' subs sooner rather than later.
What about threads like this? forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/97836/too-many-fights-are-just-stupid-hardFirst, there is actually NO reason to play a character specialized for group play. Playing a healer or tank through exclusively single player content can be fun, but for the average MMO player, it will not be done.
TheGrandAlliance wrote: »@drogon1
MMORPG: Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
IT is massive? Yes.
Can multiple people play it at same time? Yes.
Internet-based? Yes.
Role Playing? Yes.
A game? Yes.
Therefore ESO=MMORPG. This thread is thus /epicfail.
I'm sure some people do. However, people play MMOs for all sorts of reasons, and a great many don't actually play them in order to go on group activities with strangers. Or if they do, it's for an occasional outing, not a way of life. Grouping with friends is better of course, but availability is a common problem.Most or at least - many - folks who play MMOs expect to be able to advance their characters via group content. They expect to group with friends to overcome the challenges of dungeons, pvp, etc. - and to be able to advance their characters in this manner.
But that's not what you claimed as "fact" in the post I quoted - you claimed it was a fact that calling ESO an MMO is misleading, which is just an opinion (and a thoroughly contested one, at that). It's pretty self-evident that it's an MMO - it just may not be quite the flavor of MMO that you enjoy most.This I claim is a fact.
No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact".What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.
Most or at least - many - folks who play MMOs expect to be able to advance their characters via group content. They expect to group with friends to overcome the challenges of dungeons, pvp, etc. - and to be able to advance their characters in this manner.
ESO - unlike the other major MMOs out there - does not allow you to viably do this.
This I claim is a fact. And it is empirically proveable: take the playerbase at 50, and compare the total xp received between single player content and group content (assuming that there is a rough equivalency between time spent and xp received). Simple stuff.
You can argue that I am incorrect because in fact the total xp from group content is much more than I assert. Or you can argue that most MMOs out there don't allow you to advance your character via group content and that my expectation is fubar.
But please make an argument. Dismissing my claim as an "opinion" - which says nothing and does less - is like saying that pink is a color. Hint: it's not even an argument.
I gotta say now that the major rush of players is thinned out, the game is a lot more compelling. Yesterday me and my GF did an anchor, and by the time we were done it slowly grew to about ~10 people; but just starting it was a real challenge without help so each player joining made it easier.
Then everyone organically ran off in different directions, and it was neat.
This is a cute counter-argument. But vapid.
Simple question should get a simple answer. What percentage of a new level 50 total xp flows from single player content? What % from group content?
Note: for the more obtuse, whether you were grouped for the single player content does not make it "group content."
grahamz1b14_ESO wrote: »It's not an MMO? Does that mean that those guys I grouped with this past evening for 3 dungeons were npcs? What about the Dark Anchors? Those people who helped me take out the bosses for the achievements, they were my imagination? The guys that clog up the bank making it difficult to reach the banker, those were npcs put there by Zenimax to fool me?
snip
Enter ESO that UNDERMINES this basic MMO experience and expectation.
In ESO, to reach VR levels, the player has only ONE viable route: single-player content, exclusively. The game offers the plethora of MMO group content (dungeons, pvp), but has - astonishly - decided that you CANNOT advance your character by doing it.
In short, ESO is the odd game that offers MMO group content to the player, but prevents him from advancing his character by playing it.
This has a number of negative consequences:
First, there is actually NO reason to play a character specialized for group play. Playing a healer or tank through exclusively single player content can be fun, but for the average MMO player, it will not be done.
Second, grouping is pointless. I am not talking about the phasing mechanics here. The single player content in ESO as in most MMOs is common denominator and fairly faceroll. Grouping to do it makes it even less challenging - and unfun - than it already is.
Third, making an alt in the same faction is pointless, unless you enjoy performing the same quests (designed for the single-player) that you already did.
Fourth, although the xp is marginally better in PvP than in PvE group content, advancing your character in PvP is too onerous to be considered viable (especially as being underleveled you will expect to be facerolled out there).
In sum, it is misleading to advertise ESO as an MMO. Bizarrely, it tells the MMO player - "Look at all this wonderful group content we offer, just DON'T TOUCH!" I bought the Imperial Edition of this game expecting an MMO. You can say I'm pretty angry.