Wow Gamespot's Review of the Console version.

BBSooner

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

WoW wasn't cool to hate for the first 3-4 years it was out. Most of its player base is either left over from the early days or those wanting to try out the new "F2P until a certain point and then you buy time with gold" stuff. I would argue if WoW were re-released today it would fall flat.

ESO is on par (note: not better, just on par) with pretty much every name-brand MMO except for WoW.

I wouldn't say it's on par with Eve, nor FFXIV. On par with TOR, LotRO, sure. These are only my opinions of course, but I don't consider TOR or LotRO major players in MMOs.

You have no argument from me about the re-release of WoW. I agree: If a 2004 MMO was released in 2015, it would indeed fail.

Pallmor

MCMancub wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

I was reading through the comments of the people comparing it to Skyrim. Do people just have some sort of post-pregnancy nostalgia with that game? Personally, I don't find Skyrim that much fun without addons. It's the alteration of the game that makes it fun to many people, not the game itself.

Agreed. Skyrim needs addons. The base game (like oblivion) still has game-ending bugs that can tank a save file. Not to mention the dumbing down of the questing system in to "point face towards arrow ... walk towards arrow" that has sadly overtaken the series.

It's that so many people likely started with Skyrim that gives it weight in these discussions.

I wish playing Morrowind was a prereq for even installing Skyrim, just so people would see how lacking Skyrim is in just about every single RPG element. Even Oblivion introduced more hand holding, but still had a lot more of the "RPG feel" from Morrowind intact.

I've got a good friend who doesn't like any of the other Elder Scrolls game because he felt they lacked in comparison to Morrowind, and yet he plays with more than 300 addons. I begin to wonder if he's still actually playing Morrowind.

I loved Morrowind (it was my first Elder Scrolls game), but it was hardly without its flaws. Without any kind of scaling, you start out the game so weak a fly could kill you, but at a certain point (not even halfway through), you become so powerful that you're almost godlike. There is only a brief part of the game where you were just strong enough to not be constantly being killed but not too powerful so nothing could touch you. By the time I reached the point in the game where I could fly and nothing could so much as scratch me, it lost its fun factor.

Mighty_oakk

Fan boys not gonna like this one

lathbury

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

thats the thing about endgame they will keep adding to it think this game has plenty of growing to do and will get even better in the next year.

MCMancub

BBSooner wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

WoW wasn't cool to hate for the first 3-4 years it was out. Most of its player base is either left over from the early days or those wanting to try out the new "F2P until a certain point and then you buy time with gold" stuff. I would argue if WoW were re-released today it would fall flat.

ESO is on par (note: not better, just on par) with pretty much every name-brand MMO except for WoW.

I wouldn't say it's on par with Eve, nor FFXIV. On par with TOR, LotRO, sure. These are only my opinions of course, but I don't consider TOR or LotRO major players in MMOs.

You have no argument from me about the re-release of WoW. I agree: If a 2004 MMO was released in 2015, it would indeed fail.

That's fair. I would maybe say Eve is a major player, but in a different way. I wouldn't say FFXIV is. Not because it's not my cup of tea (it's actually probably more-so than ESO), but because it's still just a niche game with issues that doesn't appeal to everyone the same as ESO.

I think even if 2004 WoW was re-released as some new 2015 MMO, it would still fail. MMOs are just not as popular as they used to be. People like to be able to sit down at the computer for a play session and experience relatively the exact same thing every time (I'm glaring at you, MOBAs).

How did we move from games that gave so much freedom to ones that offer virtually no change once you've put in a few hours?

EDIT: Some guy has played LoL for 400 days of his life, but people argue MMOs take too much time. It's a grim era for online gaming.

BBSooner

lathbury wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

thats the thing about endgame they will keep adding to it think this game has plenty of growing to do and will get even better in the next year.

"The possibilities are endless because more content will come with time". That can be said for every MMO ever made. Worthwhile content, coming quickly enough to not let the previous content become overly stagnant, is the best formula for staying power. Thus far, ESO has not had the content growth, nor content length, a top MMO needs. It's a great MMO for what it is, but I still think it's only a moderate player in the industry.

Curtischoy

Dude only played AD and didn't even finish it. How can you write a review of an MMO and not mention economy or grouping? The only time he even mentioned other people is when he was talking about phasing. How can you write a review of an MMO and not mention the...MMO part?

Whatever, people can say this game is crap and people can say this game is awesome. It does not affect me, I am loving it.

Samadhi

21jws10 wrote: »

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited-review/1900-6416189/
Just wow, I like the game.. it's almost as if they went in with a glass half empty perspective, I like this game enough that i've practically dumped my witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight for it, why? Cause I think it's better. Thoughts? I would give this personally an 8 out of 10 atleast. I don't particularly like crafting, but the gameplay is very fun.

Not sure about Batman Arkham Knight, but Witcher 3 was over-rated and under-performing itself.
Gorgeous game, mediocre gameplay.
Stopped a little over half-way through and went back to playing Skyrim.
Cannot see someone playing ESO instead of Witcher 3 as a large credit to ESO.

Regarding the review, would say it is fair and quite accurate.
Would personally give ESO a 7; an 8.5 if they didn't leave PvP laggy and broken for so long.

The Good
Enormous world is overflowing with gorgeous locales to explore
Score transmits the energy of a grand epic fantasy even when the rest of the game fails to
Quest design strays away from tired MMOG conventions

The Bad
Characterization and dialogue are bland cardboard cut-outs of emotion or personality
Combat is often a slog and devoid of weight and impact
MMOG elements still feel glued on to a single-player shell

That is a pretty accurate summary of the pros and cons of ESO.
For him, those made it a 6. For me, those make it a 7.
Personally play far fewer games than a reviewer does though; so my basis for comparison is not as broad.

ESO is good but not great. Strip away my love for the Elder Scrolls series and the rose-coloured glasses come off a bit.
Would not play ESO if it were not an Elder Scrolls title.
Could argue that makes up for my extra point over the reviewer's 6. Extra fanboy point.

Sallington

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

WoW wasn't cool to hate for the first 3-4 years it was out. Most of its player base is either left over from the early days or those wanting to try out the new "F2P until a certain point and then you buy time with gold" stuff. I would argue if WoW were re-released today it would fall flat.

ESO is on par (note: not better, just on par) with pretty much every name-brand MMO except for WoW.

I wouldn't say it's on par with Eve, nor FFXIV. On par with TOR, LotRO, sure. These are only my opinions of course, but I don't consider TOR or LotRO major players in MMOs.

You have no argument from me about the re-release of WoW. I agree: If a 2004 MMO was released in 2015, it would indeed fail.

That's fair. I would maybe say Eve is a major player, but in a different way. I wouldn't say FFXIV is. Not because it's not my cup of tea (it's actually probably more-so than ESO), but because it's still just a niche game with issues that doesn't appeal to everyone the same as ESO.

I think even if 2004 WoW was re-released as some new 2015 MMO, it would still fail. MMOs are just not as popular as they used to be. People like to be able to sit down at the computer for a play session and experience relatively the exact same thing every time (I'm glaring at you, MOBAs).

How did we move from games that gave so much freedom to ones that offer virtually no change once you've put in a few hours?

EDIT: Some guy has played LoL for 400 days of his life, but people argue MMOs take too much time. It's a grim era for online gaming.

I know right!? I would kill for a sandbox MMO in the Elder Scrolls world, but I feel like we're a dying breed. And with an IP like Elder Scrolls, they weren't about to take any chances. Every MMO now seems to be "How can we make this as popular as possible, and hit the widest audience. In the process, everything loses the depth it could have had.

I think there's a lot of people that THINK they want to play an MMO, but all the really want is a co-op/multiplayer game. The term MMO has basically become synonymous with any game that is played online. People constantly call path of exile and diablo 3 MMOs...

Samadhi

Curtischoy wrote: »

Dude only played AD and didn't even finish it. How can you write a review of an MMO and not mention economy or grouping? The only time he even mentioned other people is when he was talking about phasing. How can you write a review of an MMO and not mention the...MMO part?

Whatever, people can say this game is crap and people can say this game is awesome. It does not affect me, I am loving it.

You mean the lack of text chat, awkwardness of grouping, and totally imbalanced economy from the character copy ZOS did in the console versions?

It is to my comprehension that the largest benefit to the MMO side of the ESO experience on consoles is provided by the mechanics made available by Sony and Microsoft (ie: players I know of are playing ESO with friends they know from other games on Xbox Live).

Perhaps the review would have scored lower, if the reviewer was more familiar with the state of the game.

Instead, he only mentioned the MMO elements as being tacked-on to single-player gameplay.

BBSooner

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

ESO is cool to hate. People tend to hate big companies and extra critique them. Some smaller unknown company makes a games and its best thing since bread and butter.

Eh, WoW is "cool to hate". I would say ESO is still a moderate player in the MMO industry as opposed to a major one at the moment. As much as I enjoy ESO (though less of late) I don't think it has the staying power of a top MMO since the best part of the game is still the beginning/middle.

WoW wasn't cool to hate for the first 3-4 years it was out. Most of its player base is either left over from the early days or those wanting to try out the new "F2P until a certain point and then you buy time with gold" stuff. I would argue if WoW were re-released today it would fall flat.

ESO is on par (note: not better, just on par) with pretty much every name-brand MMO except for WoW.

I wouldn't say it's on par with Eve, nor FFXIV. On par with TOR, LotRO, sure. These are only my opinions of course, but I don't consider TOR or LotRO major players in MMOs.

You have no argument from me about the re-release of WoW. I agree: If a 2004 MMO was released in 2015, it would indeed fail.

How did we move from games that gave so much freedom to ones that offer virtually no change once you've put in a few hours?

EDIT: Some guy has played LoL for 400 days of his life, but people argue MMOs take too much time. It's a grim era for online gaming.

Agreed. What made early MMOs so great for many people (myself included) is because they had niche gameplay. Since the early greats of UO, AO, EQ, early WoW, etc. were the niche gameplay. Everything you did had meaning. Even death had meaning, and you were punished - and likely thought about what you would do differently while you were walking back to your corpse or grinding back the experience you lost.

Because MMO is such a broad term now, companies feel like they need to incorporate the broad gameplay associated with the less niche playstyles.

What our characters do now no longer has any effect, unless we succeed - we all get our "participation trophy" now for everything we do because losing makes people frowny face, and (if some people are to be believed) that makes the game bad.

Pallmor

MMO players are always complaining that they don't feel like they really change the world and their actions have no real effect. But if ESO had done that, here's what your experience would have been:

"Yeah, I'm finally starting the new ESO, where players can change the world and have a real impact!"

"Welcome to the game, new adventurer. I'm your NPC guide."

"So, where do I go to save the world from the evil Molag Bal?"

"Molag Bal was already defeated by the first player who came through. All hail our savior, Oblivi0n_Rulz55 !"

"So what's left for me to do?"

"Well, we got farming, ditch digging, and blacksmithing positions available."

So, no cool quests?

Nope, other players already did them. Might want to get in early next time.

Personofsecrets

"Maybe I'm a masochist, but I suspect I'll continue to return to The Elder Scrolls Online in the months ahead"

This reviewer actually nails it.

arena25

The Gamespot review reminds me of an old Dilbert comic strip...hold on...

*rushes downstairs*

Ok, back...while I can't copy and paste the comic strip in its entirety because of copyright laws, I can most certainly post the words:

CAROL (to IDIOT BOSS): Our products got reviewed in the new issue of "Extortion Magazine".
IDIOT BOSS (reading the review aloud): "If they had bought more ad space in this magazine, we would not compare their products to week-old spit."
CAROL (to IDIOT BOSS): It's better than last month.
IDIOT BOSS (thinking aloud): I'll bet we can get to "day-old" with another half-page ad.

Anyway, guys, I have to agree with the OP and say they went in with a glass half-empty perspective and just wanted to look for the negatives. That's not good reviewing, in fact, I would almost call that bad journalism (although I would have to have my journalism teacher confirm my suspicion).

The reviewer has to give the game a lot more credit, because the game looks better visual-wise than World of Warcraft. In WoW, even when you have your settings on Ultra, the game is very pixelated (just look at wolves tails in that game, and you'll agree with me). That "pixelated feel" is what drove my sister away from World of Warcraft. ESO, on the other hand, looks so surreal, pixels are very hard to tell.

Overall, I give the game a 8.5 out of 10, while I give the Gamespot Review a 2 out of 10.

BBSooner

Pallmor wrote: »

MMO players are always complaining that they don't feel like they really change the world and their actions have no real effect. But if ESO had done that, here's what your experience would have been:

"Yeah, I'm finally starting the new ESO, where players can change the world and have a real impact!"

"Welcome to the game, new adventurer. I'm your NPC guide."

"So, where do I go to save the world from the evil Molag Bal?"

"Molag Bal was already defeated by the first player who came through. All hail our savior, Oblivi0n_Rulz55 !"

"So what's left for me to do?"

"Well, we got farming, ditch digging, and blacksmithing positions available."

So, no cool quests?

Nope, other players already did them. Might want to get in early next time.

I think this is a misunderstanding with the concept of actions having an effect.

Though small, an example of an action having meaning would be the finale of the Mages Guild questline. The player is potentially denied actual character advancement based on a decision. Hopefully the decision each player made will be carried on and alter the experience when the questline moves forward, otherwise the decision is reduced

Samadhi

arena25 wrote: »

The Gamespot review reminds me of an old Dilbert comic strip...hold on...

*rushes downstairs*

Ok, back...while I can't copy and paste the comic strip in its entirety because of copyright laws, I can most certainly post the words:

CAROL (to IDIOT BOSS): Our products got reviewed in the new issue of "Extortion Magazine".
IDIOT BOSS (reading the review aloud): "If they had bought more ad space in this magazine, we would not compare their products to week-old spit."
CAROL (to IDIOT BOSS): It's better than last month.
IDIOT BOSS (thinking aloud): I'll bet we can get to "day-old" with another half-page ad.

Anyway, guys, I have to agree with the OP and say they went in with a glass half-empty perspective and just wanted to look for the negatives. That's not good reviewing, in fact, I would almost call that bad journalism (although I would have to have my journalism teacher confirm my suspicion).

The reviewer has to give the game a lot more credit, because the game looks better visual-wise than World of Warcraft. In WoW, even when you have your settings on Ultra, the game is very pixelated (just look at wolves tails in that game, and you'll agree with me). That "pixelated feel" is what drove my sister away from World of Warcraft. ESO, on the other hand, looks so surreal, pixels are very hard to tell.

Overall, I give the game a 8.5 out of 10, while I give the Gamespot Review a 2 out of 10.

It makes sense to review it from that perspective; ESO is not a new game just because it recently came out on Console.
ESO is over a year old with even more Beta time on top of that to sort out the issues.
It is perfectly fair to go into Tamriel Unlimited looking to see if ZOS solved the complaints that came up the first time around.

Giving a game "a lot more credit" for graphics is like dating a woman with no personality just because she looks good.
Aside from being easy on the eyes, she still makes me bang my head on the wall over the simplest things.

Psychobunni

I agree with the review and it can be summed up in once sentence

"The Elder Scrolls Online's inability to reconcile its single-player roots with its newfound MMOG playground."


That is the long and short of the whole problem.

Ruthven

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Guy mentions how he has spent "scores" of hours playing the game he doesnt like.

Because that's his job: to play the crap out of the game and give his verdict on it.

I'll be honest: had they kept the subscription fees I would not have stuck around. It just wouldn't be worth it.

UPrime

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

Sallington

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

Then that's even scarier that it took over a year to release, if it releases as scheduled.

MCMancub

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

I imagine they've been done with the bulk of I.C. for some time now and have been told by the boys upstairs to hold off until console release.

jkemmery

I'm honestly not sure why anyone, anywhere pays attention to anything any critic has to say about anything anymore, much less gives any credence to their ramblings and rantings. This critic's article is at the same time both hyper-critical and hypocritical: he even states at the end that he will probably return, even after his smearing of the game. If it sucked so bad, why would you go back? If it's a game you want to keep playing, why bash it so hard? The answer is this: critics are professional A-Holes. Why even pay any attention to them? I don't. Not for games, movies or music: it's simply a waste of my time to pay any attention to them. I read this article only so I could respond. In the back of your mind, just tell all critics to go EFF themselves off a cliff, and be done with them. You'll be much happier and have a much broader appreciation for the art that you consume without having it tainted through the lens of a professional A-Hole.

Sallington

MCMancub wrote: »

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

I imagine they've been done with the bulk of I.C. for some time now and have been told by the boys upstairs to hold off until console release.

That's more than likely, which is the worst thing they could have done IMO.

Samadhi

MCMancub wrote: »

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

I imagine they've been done with the bulk of I.C. for some time now and have been told by the boys upstairs to hold off until console release.

Like when it was basically ready back at the implementation of the Justice System, then we were told we would not be getting it because the Justice System added so much content to the game?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Ruthven wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Guy mentions how he has spent "scores" of hours playing the game he doesnt like.

Because that's his job: to play the crap out of the game and give his verdict on it.

I'll be honest: had they kept the subscription fees I would not have stuck around. It just wouldn't be worth it.

He wasnt paid to play the game. He most likely wasnt even paid for the review. They did not pay him to play "scores" of hours.

MCMancub

Sallington wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

I imagine they've been done with the bulk of I.C. for some time now and have been told by the boys upstairs to hold off until console release.

That's more than likely, which is the worst thing they could have done IMO.

From a customer satisfaction perspective, I agree. But it will undoubtedly make them more money by having waited.

tallenn

I don't see where everyone thinks this is a bad review. After all, he states that he will likely continue playing it for at least the next few months. You don't continue playing a game you "hate".

I don't agree with the "6"- in my opinion, what he said (which I mostly agree with) should have put it at a "7", but the actual things he talks about were pretty spot-on. ESO has some really great attributes, but it also has a lot of glaring shortcomings. It definitely falls FAR short of it's potential.

Sallington

MCMancub wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

UPrime wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EDIT: Honestly, if they never bothered with consoles, I think we would have a much more polished game on our hands. The better part of the past year was them working on the console release.

Not everybody at zos was working on console. UI, programming and testing sure, but content and abilities is all shared so those people have been working on Imp City and the new Orc zone and the new balance stuff in update 7.

I imagine they've been done with the bulk of I.C. for some time now and have been told by the boys upstairs to hold off until console release.

That's more than likely, which is the worst thing they could have done IMO.

From a customer satisfaction perspective, I agree. But it will undoubtedly make them more money by having waited.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I have trust issues now with this game. It's more about making money than making the players happy. This on top of the amount of time they've gone back on their word. I'm in a strictly "I'll believe it when I see it" mode. They've already sold me too much empty hype.

And I truly feel for the devs. The original vision of this game was freaking phenomenal, so many great ideas. I have no doubt all of my complaints should be directed at the execs that have no idea about anything besides how to make profits for investors.

Acrolas

The only opinion that will ever matter is how you feel about losing your characters when the game server shuts down for good. And even then, some people will be, "It had a good run." Others will be, "WHY GOD, WHY????"

I like that range of opinion. Homogeneous communities are boring.

Emma_Overload

Very strange review, from my point of view. Except for the valid complaints about the Cyrodiil horse simulator (aka PvP), I don't care about or notice any of his issues. This is all level 1-50 stuff that you complete in the first 3 weeks and never worry about again unless you roll an alt, in which case leveling is going to be a boring chore no matter what.

No, the REAL problems with ESO start around VR11-12, when you complete Cadwell's Gold. Then you get to Craglorn, Trials, DSA, Veteran Pledges and all the other group-gated or solo-impossible content. On the one hand, ESO's "endgame" is totally hostile to solo players, and on the other hand, the LFG tool catastrophically FAILS to help those players group up when they need to.

On top of that, the reviewer didn't say anything about the 5 year CP grind. Love it or hate it, this is the centerpiece of progression in ESO, so the fact that it wasn't mentioned shows me that the reviewer didn't takes his task very seriously.