My biggest problem with replayability.

Tapio75

Hello.

After a launch, i have done almost all quests twice now, even at the second time it felt a bit mind numbing.

¨Why?

Because the problem with quests is, that there is not enough to create own storylines and despite few rare occasions, there are no choices, meaninggful or meaningless but choices none th e less.

I think the game should really be improved greatly on this side, it is TES game after all, no matter the MMORPG flag after it, its still and TES game and thius, has some standards and expectations to fulfill.

There need to be more choices and more ways to complete one quests, there need to be choices, even if they are meaningless in the end, the choice brings in some flavour though i would prefer meaningful choices.

The game has to have some other ways to play the main story and other quests as well, there should be choices from lawful good to neutral to lawful evil.

You race and class should also be something NPC's notice and there should be some class specific quests as well.

NPC's should know if you are a vampire or werewolf and if quest needs vampire blood like the on at Eastmarch, you should be able to give that blood yourself, same with WW if there are quests that need something from WW.

In general, game needs variations and it needs them greatly, no new expansion will help in this if it does not add any choices to existing stories.

For example, it would be interesting to side with Mannimarco for a change, even if i fail in the end, its still part of a story and it would be nice to see the other side of it as well.

BlackSparrow

Yep. One of my biggest lamentations about the writing of this game is how little the choices matter. Like, you'd expect the choice at the end of the Betnikh storyline to make a difference, right? Nope... it just dictates which people are ticked off at you later. And it would be so wonderful to have races matter in character interactions... like playing a human in the Dominion, or having a vampire or werewolf on certain storylines. I'd love for your choices to actually lock you out of content, or create new ways to experience the game (such as the Joining the Worm Cult option you mentioned).

But... I can also kinda see why they didn't. Every branch in a video game story is more writing, more coding, more voice acting, more instancing, and more things that can go wrong. It's a massive time investment for something that a lot of players aren't going to see, because many players stick to their mains and only make alts for storage. If they spend that much time and money on something, they want to make sure that most players see it... and the more work it is (aka, the more starkly different the branch), the harder it is to pull off.

This is why single-player RPGs are always going to be better at this. RPGs are focused on creating that experience... the games are specifically designed to make you feel like your choices matter. That's what an RPG is. But an MMO is usually more focused on providing constant content and endgame repeatables that will keep the players occupied for the longterm. What's one story branch going to get you: another hour of playtime while you see that branch? Meanwhile, designing a good endgame repeatable can keep you occupied for months.

So... yeah, I agree with your post, and I'm sad it can't happen... but it's just kinda how life is when you're dealing with big, unwieldy MMOs.

Keep_Door

It being an MMO quests you do cant really alter the world drasticly like in later TES games. With so many diffrent choices the world would have to be phased in and out for everyone making different choices.

Also to me questing was ok once but after that its just a way to gain skill points. Granted im more of a MMO fan then RPGs. Its all about end game content such as trials vet dungeons and pvp, thats the replayability not re doing quests you have done before.

I didnt really read all you wrote skimmed it but really it does come down to the fact its an MMO and not a solo RPG. Plain and simple.

Tapio75

Question also is, why every MMO has to follow the same path? ESO could have been written to please TES folks only but they just had to get the general MMO lot in the mix as well.

Games like EVE for example, are small, granted that, but they exists and are done the right way, pointed to certain demography of players, not just general MMO stuff.

As for choices needing phasing and instancing, not really. One can simply make the illusion of bigger consequence by letting one quests or anothers story and stuff go differently while in quest, afterwards the difference is only what NPC's say to you when you pass. Jusr like they know dont want to talk to you if you are a criminal of enough bounty.


Propably will not happen but its possible to add material afterwards.

If not ZOS content, then they could add a feature similar to what exists in Start trek online and Neverwinter. A system that allow players to create own content. I dont really lmow how one would to this on ESO, but these games show, that this is possible and not to mention, at least in Star Tek Online, the player generated quests are almost always better than what devs come up with.

Chilly-McFreeze

BlackSparrow wrote: »

Yep. One of my biggest lamentations about the writing of this game is how little the choices matter. Like, you'd expect the choice at the end of the Betnikh storyline to make a difference, right? Nope... it just dictates which people are ticked off at you later. And it would be so wonderful to have races matter in character interactions... like playing a human in the Dominion, or having a vampire or werewolf on certain storylines. I'd love for your choices to actually lock you out of content, or create new ways to experience the game (such as the Joining the Worm Cult option you mentioned).

But... I can also kinda see why they didn't. Every branch in a video game story is more writing, more coding, more voice acting, more instancing, and more things that can go wrong. It's a massive time investment for something that a lot of players aren't going to see, because many players stick to their mains and only make alts for storage. If they spend that much time and money on something, they want to make sure that most players see it... and the more work it is (aka, the more starkly different the branch), the harder it is to pull off.

This is why single-player RPGs are always going to be better at this. RPGs are focused on creating that experience... the games are specifically designed to make you feel like your choices matter. That's what an RPG is. But an MMO is usually more focused on providing constant content and endgame repeatables that will keep the players occupied for the longterm. What's one story branch going to get you: another hour of playtime while you see that branch? Meanwhile, designing a good endgame repeatable can keep you occupied for months.

So... yeah, I agree with your post, and I'm sad it can't happen... but it's just kinda how life is when you're dealing with big, unwieldy MMOs.

No. Just no. I don't want to sit 60 days playtime in front of my PC, playing my main just to realize I couldn't do this or that because of a decision I made when I was at level 20.

But beside lockouts I'm all in for meaningfull choices. Far too often it doesn't make a difference what you do to whom. I can't remember how often I googled quest outcomes when I could make a choice just to see every outcome is the same. Best example are the keystones from Shadowfen.

BlackSparrow

Tapio75 wrote: »

Question also is, why every MMO has to follow the same path? ESO could have been written to please TES folks only but they just had to get the general MMO lot in the mix as well.

Games like EVE for example, are small, granted that, but they exists and are done the right way, pointed to certain demography of players, not just general MMO stuff.

As for choices needing phasing and instancing, not really. One can simply make the illusion of bigger consequence by letting one quests or anothers story and stuff go differently while in quest, afterwards the difference is only what NPC's say to you when you pass. Jusr like they know dont want to talk to you if you are a criminal of enough bounty.


Propably will not happen but its possible to add material afterwards.

If not ZOS content, then they could add a feature similar to what exists in Start trek online and Neverwinter. A system that allow players to create own content. I dont really lmow how one would to this on ESO, but these games show, that this is possible and not to mention, at least in Star Tek Online, the player generated quests are almost always better than what devs come up with.

For a choice to feel like it matters, yes, you do need phasing and instancing. Otherwise, it just comes off as incredibly shallow. Again, take the Betnikh decision: it does affect dialogue later in the game, as you meet characters later who will be all like "Hey, I haven't seen you since ____" and "Thanks for saving me, but I still haven't forgiven you for ____" It comes off as incredibly shallow, because that decision was tied to something pretty important, but it ultimately means nothing.

I'll agree that for things like NPCs noticing your race or vampire/werewolf status, dialogue would generally be enough... but even that would need to be expanded upon in quests that concern those character types. What if someone sees you change into a werewolf during the Glenumbra storyline, and you have to do a quest to earn their trust and prove you're not a spy for the Bloodthorn Cult? That would be a rewarding consequence for a lot of people (though others who just want to finish the zone would find it obnoxious), but it would take a lot of writing, coding, and voice acting that most non-werewolf players would never see. Ergo, it wouldn't be worth the cost.

And that's the problem with an MMO. These games are big and unwieldy, and it is a fine, thin line between success and failure. Just look at all the MMOs that have buckled over the years to get a sense at just how hard it is to keep one of these going... and the ones that survive tend to be the ones that know how to market and how to monetize. You mentioned EVE... but look at how P2W that game is. It monetizes its top players like no other game I know, and that's how it stays afloat. ESO has made a deliberate decision to avoid P2W elements in the cash shop. Basically, EVE monetizes a few players for a lot, whereas ESO needs to monetize many for a little.

So why can't a TES MMO make risky decisions? Because they aren't marketing toward just TES fans. The small, hardcore TES following just isn't big enough to sustain a massive game like this... especially not one that has big budget production values like full graphics, an orchestrated score, and multiple high-budget celebrity voice actors. So to really get enough of a playerbase to pay for this game, they needed to bring in the MMO crowd as a whole, and that crowd is way more focused on things like PvP and raids than on emergent storytelling. They needed to build a game that appealed to both bases, and in doing so left out many features that would have only appealed to one side. One of those things the TES side didn't get is emergent branching storylines.

It stinks, but it's a fact of MMO life.

As for player-generated quests? I think that would be a good idea, and one they might implement if they have the means (since it will keep a lot of the playerbase occupied for longer). Not sure where they'd put a system like that, though... maybe in one of the not-yet-released zones?

Tapio75

What exactly is pay to win for top players in EVE?

Other than that, you think too grand, like its either none of the thing or the best possible. Even a choice with shallow consequence is a choice that matters and gives extra flavour and replayability to questing

Beside, instances in certain cases are fully possible, every area of the game is allready split in to numerous instances. All that really needs to change for bethnik for example, is to have 2 separate instances of some inside area for example where the follow up happens. Other choice goes to other instance and the other goes to seconf version. After getting out of that inside instance like house, all that really needs to be different is how some NPC's react to you, it just does not have to be that grand at all, just litle more variation to allow different stories in partial content.

Main story is most easy to do, all is allready solo, all we need is another version to follow on solo, its easy since nobody else is there to witness anything.

Yes, it will require some writing but thats why there are story writers at work and programmers coding, it only good to have more options for more players which means more player in general because each has its own.

PS: Many of those failed MMO's have been just plain copies of WOW, other have been ruined by players who want these games to turn in to WOW

ADarklore

I think too many people are expecting an MMO to 'feel like a single player game'... it can't. There are far too many variables involved in an MMO, and creating separate 'instances' for different choices would be a coders nightmare, let alone the extra server space, bandwidth, etc. required. We already deal with the issues of broken quests with every update, now imagine if there were multiple 'choices' for quests, it would be a complete mess. The only way to maintain a huge MMO with thousands of miles of code, is to limit choices but have those choices have no real impact because you cannot individualize an MMO with millions of players making choices. Furthermore, MMOs are all about adding additional content, so while early players may have felt the 'boredom' with repeating quests, as more content is added there will be a lot for new players to do. I think that is with every MMO however, that eventually, hardcore players run out of content and their only option is to move on or replay the same content. At least ESO is nothing like DCUO, where you literally have to run the exact same mission over and over and over again to increase your character; I'd much rather replay 1000 quests than replay a single mission 100 times or more.

BlackSparrow

Tapio75 wrote: »

What exactly is pay to win for top players in EVE?

Honestly, maybe my info on EVE is out of date, since I haven't tried it in years, so I'll go ahead and retract that particular statement.

The point still stands, though, that money management is a big issue when dealing with an MMO, especially one that's free-to-play. Yes, they have writers and coders, but they're already busy crafting content that they hope the most people possible will enjoy (in this case, the Morrowind expansion). Everything takes time and money, and a game company has to figure out how to allocate their resources. For an MMO, you want content the most people will get the longest entertainment from... and replayability is not really on the radar of a lot of MMO veterans, so it's not on the devs' radars either.

Tapio75 wrote: »

Other than that, you think too grand, like its either none of the thing or the best possible. Even a choice with shallow consequence is a choice that matters and gives extra flavour and replayability to questing

This game does have choices with shallow consequences. Many characters will show up multiple times throughout an alliance, and will refer to things you've previously done to or for them. Again, see the Betnikh choice I cited above. The thing is that the amount of NPC reaction they currently have doesn't seem like enough, and I have a feeling that would always be the case. If NPCs did react to your race, you'd still be able to tell that your choices don't make any difference. If your choices did make a small difference, you'd feel that they didn't make a big difference. No matter what, there is still an element of restriction.

That said, I think the bottom line here is that you and I have different opinions about what makes a choice "matter." Me, I love RPGs like Dragon Age, where your race, class, and general background play a massive role in how the world sees you. Inquisition, in particular, had choices where you were actually locked out of content because you made particular choices (though they had the courtesy to warn you when there was a choice like that). I love that sort of game, which I can play over and over again in different ways and see different things. The games where my actions impact the story in big, meaningful ways... those are my favorites.

Though, as @Chilly-McFreeze so eloquently put, I am in the minority here. That's not how most people want to play their MMOs. I speak through the lens of an RPG nerd and someone with chronic altitis.

But that's the thing. Either you choices matter or they don't. They can't kinda matter... then you get the "Hey, I remember you from ___" dialogue that is already in the game and that, ultimately, doesn't matter. At least not enough to make gameplay all that different, which is my definition.

Tapio75 wrote: »

PS: Many of those failed MMO's have been just plain copies of WOW, other have been ruined by players who want these games to turn in to WOW

Definitely not true. You're saying that Star Wars Galaxies and City of Heroes were WoW clones? Many tried to be WoW killers, sure. But clones? No. For some, this is true, and they were trying to court a market that WoW had already gobbled up... but for many it's way more complicated than that. Things like not bringing in the correct player base, or making a change that causes a max exodus, or just not making enough money to keep the servers online can also play a huge part in killing a game like this.

Remember: I'm agreeing with you here. I want my characters to be reacted to according to their race. Heck, I'd love to take it a step further and have selectable backgrounds that grant further little perks and interactions. In my dream game, everything about your character is reacted to by the NPCs... race, class, creed, height, guild affiliations... I eat that stuff up.

But alas, reality is limited. Game companies have to take development time and money into account, and MMO playerbases can be fickle beasts. They have to cater to the MMO players and the TES players at the same time, or they start losing half their player base. Because of that, it's a bit of a "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" situation.

Again, I'm not saying it's not disappointing, and I definitely agree with you that even some more "shallow" choices are better than none at all... just that there are other factors at play that are just part of the genre. For replayability, single player RPGs are always going to be better, because that's what they excel at. MMOs are about continuous play, and that's a different monster altogether.

Tapio75

@BlackSparrow
I think we are on the same not and piece but play a different instrument

Anyway, i guess the big problem with ESO is, that i was waiting for a much smaller game, built for more select playerbase and was and still are quite disappointed for the end result being themepark MMO.

I just hope, that they will one day create a TES x :Tamriel/Nirn, an true TES game, fully moddable and including all areas, perphaps as a base game and areas as Expansions/DLC later on. These will always be better true RPG but one cant play with a friend on single player game and in cooperative play to form an adventure party, a group of raggedy adventurers known from many fantasy books.. Even with those, it is not the same as you dont meet new friends in these games if theres no lobby systems inviolved..

Of Star Wars galacxies, that was great game though the housing got places a bit too populated
The way i understood it, was that the game was killed, when Jedi was allowed for everyone? No mateer how, that game was great fun