ESO not MMO

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Jeremy wrote: »

m12d12_ESO wrote: »

Firor argues, does not include the more intense mechanics that are typically found in games of the category. It lacks the “tab targeting” and “mouse movement” that might be found in other, traditional MMOs and the game is also not “PC-only” or “super hardcore," which sets it apart in Firor's mind.
We have had "Targeting" with TAB for ever it seems and can be pretty hardcore. [snip]

[edited for bashing and name in title]

I don't know who Firor is. But "intense mechanics", "tab targeting", "mouse movement" and "PC-only" have nothing to do with whether or not a game is massively multiplayer and online.

Matt Fior was hired by Zenimax Media in 2007 to Head ZoS. He was previously with Mythic Entertainment (Dark Age of Camelot).

Morgha_Kul

Elsonso wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

There are plenty of multiplayer online games that aren't MMOs. By definition, a first person shooter is an Action game. That it's played online doesn't make it an MMO, it's still an Action game.

Again, it comes down to what you can do in the game when you're not doing the "content." If all you can do is quests, then it's still just an Adventure game. If all you can do is battles (eg. first person shooting), then it's an Action game. The MMO is defined by the world of the game being content in itself.

An MMO game is any game that has a very large number of players online simultaneously on the same "server". (Server in quotes because cloud makes this fuzzy. )

People tend to shorten "MMORPG" to just "MMO" because RPG games dominate, but lots of other genres could be an MMO if someone wanted to make one.

I suspect you didn't read my post (granted, it was pretty long). MMOs are not MMOs because they're online and/or multiplayer. They need more than that. A game like Fortnite is an Online Action game. A game like TOR is an Online Adventure game. Neither is actually an MMO... but as I said in the beginning, it's a matter of definition. There has never been a consistent one. I've provided what I think is the best definition, because it identifies the genre based on what makes it different.

spekdah

I don't think of ESO as an MMO in the traditional sense. To me it's more like a shared single player game with optional group content. Maybe it's sits in some gray area in the middle and that's why it's polarizing.

I guess I hold the older definition or bias that MMO's are group content, i.e. need a group to progress or consume content.
If you look at the % of time people play vs % time grouped, ESO is much lower than the older traditional mmo's where you need to be grouped to actually do anything outside of crafting, housing or using vendors.

Much of ESO's content can be done solo; i.e. writs, farming mats, zone quests, dailies, cyrodill, IC, even dungeons and with companions added you can do more. Forced grouping is mainly trials, vet DLC dungeons, BG's

With ESO being casual friendly (implying solo friendly), make it feels more a single player game sharing a space. Which is different from having forced multiplayer content.

Elsonso

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

There are plenty of multiplayer online games that aren't MMOs. By definition, a first person shooter is an Action game. That it's played online doesn't make it an MMO, it's still an Action game.

Again, it comes down to what you can do in the game when you're not doing the "content." If all you can do is quests, then it's still just an Adventure game. If all you can do is battles (eg. first person shooting), then it's an Action game. The MMO is defined by the world of the game being content in itself.

An MMO game is any game that has a very large number of players online simultaneously on the same "server". (Server in quotes because cloud makes this fuzzy. )

People tend to shorten "MMORPG" to just "MMO" because RPG games dominate, but lots of other genres could be an MMO if someone wanted to make one.

I suspect you didn't read my post (granted, it was pretty long). MMOs are not MMOs because they're online and/or multiplayer. They need more than that. A game like Fortnite is an Online Action game. A game like TOR is an Online Adventure game. Neither is actually an MMO... but as I said in the beginning, it's a matter of definition. There has never been a consistent one. I've provided what I think is the best definition, because it identifies the genre based on what makes it different.

I read. MMOs are MMOs because they have a large number of concurrent players on the same server. Fortnite is not an MMO because of the limit to how many concurrent players there are per server, not because it is an "online action game". An MMO can be an RPG game, but does not have to be. It can be a shooter, like Planetside 2, which actually holds a record for number of simultaneous players in an MMOFPS game. Sims Online was an MMO. Second Life is an MMO.

Roztlin45

Eso is a SSPO : shared single player online

spekdah

ESO can have a large number of concurrent players online. But unless its PvP, a group event (dungeons, harrowstorm, dragons), or clashing over a node; a lot of the time you are not interacting with any of these players around you.

Much of the time the other players are really just window dressing.

Where as previous MMOs you needed those other players to even walk out of a city..... otherwise you died
It is more of a single player enabled game that you share with other people. MMOs of the past forced more interaction with all those other players on the server.

ESO's stance of what it instances and what it does not instance also blurs the lines, i.e. Shadowfen atm.

Rust_in_Peace

Well, he's right. It's not an MMO because the bulk of the game is easier than a mobile game.

Morgha_Kul

Elsonso wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

There are plenty of multiplayer online games that aren't MMOs. By definition, a first person shooter is an Action game. That it's played online doesn't make it an MMO, it's still an Action game.

Again, it comes down to what you can do in the game when you're not doing the "content." If all you can do is quests, then it's still just an Adventure game. If all you can do is battles (eg. first person shooting), then it's an Action game. The MMO is defined by the world of the game being content in itself.

An MMO game is any game that has a very large number of players online simultaneously on the same "server". (Server in quotes because cloud makes this fuzzy. )

People tend to shorten "MMORPG" to just "MMO" because RPG games dominate, but lots of other genres could be an MMO if someone wanted to make one.

I suspect you didn't read my post (granted, it was pretty long). MMOs are not MMOs because they're online and/or multiplayer. They need more than that. A game like Fortnite is an Online Action game. A game like TOR is an Online Adventure game. Neither is actually an MMO... but as I said in the beginning, it's a matter of definition. There has never been a consistent one. I've provided what I think is the best definition, because it identifies the genre based on what makes it different.

I read. MMOs are MMOs because they have a large number of concurrent players on the same server. Fortnite is not an MMO because of the limit to how many concurrent players there are per server, not because it is an "online action game". An MMO can be an RPG game, but does not have to be. It can be a shooter, like Planetside 2, which actually holds a record for number of simultaneous players in an MMOFPS game. Sims Online was an MMO. Second Life is an MMO.

Clearly we're not going to agree on this, but I'll make one final response. MMO is itself an abbreviation, shortened from MMORPG. They evolved from Adventure games, not action games. This is why games like Fortnite or Planetside are not MMOs, because they're Action games. Yes, they're multiplayer, but the game doesn't immerse you in the world of the game. You're only there to do battles, the action of the game. Without those battles... there's nothing else.

Now, I've never played Planetside 2 or Fortnite... so I may be off base on that, but my understanding is that they're first person shooters, not adventures, and don't have a relationship with the environment beyond as an arena.

I've had this argument many times before, in many other places. They always devolve into "You're wrong," "No, YOU'RE wrong...," so I'll simply agree to disagree, respectfully.

Amottica

Goregrinder wrote: »

He is correct in his description of ESO, and how it is not like other MMORPG's. But ESO is still massively-multiplayer, it's still an RPG, and it's still played online.

I am one of those 33 agrees you have so far, in addition to 3 insightful.

Heck, while I had to adjust to ESO's mechanics for movement and targeting I find them refreshing and free. Looking back at gameplay with tab targeting I found it somewhat lazy as I did not have to pay attention to targeting.

Ekzorka

If TESO isn't MMO because you can play solo, than Classic WoW isn't MMO too because I played it alone too a long time ago. If TESO isn't MMO than why it was a winner in MMO category?

Auztinito

What’s the big deal, really?
Personally, if I do play the game. It’s more like how I’d play a solo/co-op RPG with live service model of content and ect. MMO’s differ by convincing me to work or compete against a large amount of people. In other words, I’m more social on a MMO like FFXIV than ESO.

As for the stupid comment about games being less creative because they’re more “political”. Seriously? You’re playing Elder Scrolls which draws parallels to actual stuff like prejudice and racism. (Dumner being reminiscent of American South during Slavery with villages/plantations aesthetically look like Plantations back then). You don’t see the resemblance because you’re not paying attention. Or what about Fallout where it shows the failure of the U.S government being extremely capitalistic. C’mon. Really? GTFO with that. Here’s the thing, any piece of art has some form of political influence.

vallisas

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

It's all semantics.

I've watched gamers streaming other Elder Scrolls games who'll say things like "I'm planning to stream all of the Elder Scrolls games-- except ESO, because I don't consider it to be an Elder Scrolls game since it's an MMO, and maybe not Battlespire and Redguard, because they aren't part of the main series." And once upon a time, before I decided to actually buy and play ESO, I felt pretty much the same way about it.

The thing is, many gamers seem to have specific ideas about what MMOs "are" and what they "should be" like.

You can see the same thing in other types of product or activity-- people tend to get fixed ideas about what a certain thing "is" and what it "should be."

For instance, what pops into your mind when I say things like "comic book," or "super hero movie," or "science fiction novel," or "fantasy novel," or "romance novel," and so forth? You probably think of specific examples of those things that you happen to be familiar with, or very well-known examples that you've heard of even though you might not have any actual experience of them. Therefore, if someone were to tell you something like "It's a western TV show," you're probably going to automatically form specific preconceived notions about it based on other "western TV shows" that you're familiar with, especially the most popular or well-known ones, such as Gunsmoke, or Bonanza, or whatever.

And people's preconceptions about a certain category of things can change overnight if a specific example of it becomes wildly popular overnight. For instance, you could probably write a college thesis examining various science fiction movies on the basis of "Before Star Wars" and "After Star Wars."

For that reason, sometimes people try to avoid referring to something as a particular type of thing because they don't want people to automatically make a lot of blanket assumptions about it.

It's a shame some people disregard Eso for being an mmo, some of the writing and the voice acting is superior to the main quest line of Skyrim tbh

SeaGtGruff

vallisas wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

I've watched gamers streaming other Elder Scrolls games who'll say things like "I'm planning to stream all of the Elder Scrolls games-- except ESO, because I don't consider it to be an Elder Scrolls game since it's an MMO, [...]." And once upon a time, before I decided to actually buy and play ESO, I felt pretty much the same way about it.

It's a shame some people disregard Eso for being an mmo, some of the writing and the voice acting is superior to the main quest line of Skyrim tbh

I cut down the quote of my earlier post to just the part I think you're commenting on.

I agree that any Elder Scrolls fans who disregard ESO and stay away from it because it's an MMO are missing out.

In some ways, I consider it to be the best Elder Scrolls game, because it's the most successful at creating an environment that players can live in on a day-by-day basis.

The fourth and fifth games of the main series do have repeatable quests, which try to give players a reason to keep playing the game after they've completed the main quest, the faction quests, and the miscellaneous quests, but there really aren't that many different repeatable quests.

In contrast, ESO has a large number of repeatable quests, and the ability to interact with one's fellow players means that the game's world feels more vibrant and alive than the game worlds of the single-player games.

thorwyn

Why are people so obsessed with definitions and categorizations?
Let's assume there is some sort of fail proof indicator (that everyone agrees on) to define and label a game. Let's assume the result is: ESO is a MMO. Or ESO is not a MMO. What would we gain from this wisdom and knowledge? What would that change?

Elsonso

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

In some ways, I consider it to be the best Elder Scrolls game, because it's the most successful at creating an environment that players can live in on a day-by-day basis.

The fourth and fifth games of the main series do have repeatable quests, which try to give players a reason to keep playing the game after they've completed the main quest, the faction quests, and the miscellaneous quests, but there really aren't that many different repeatable quests.

In contrast, ESO has a large number of repeatable quests, and the ability to interact with one's fellow players means that the game's world feels more vibrant and alive than the game worlds of the single-player games.

Honestly, ESO pretty much ruined a lot of the entertainment that I got from Skyrim. It made me realize that the only reason that I even continued to play Skyrim was the modding. The mods that I tend to install in Skyrim are the ones that extend the game, like quest and areas, and companions, because the game is just very lonely. And patch mods.

These days, I find Skyrim terribly boring to play. Since ESO, I have started new Skyrim games several times, and I think I may have gotten to Level 10 on one of them. When I get back to them, I can't remember why I was playing them, then delete and restart.

Dagre2

I agree, ESO isn't an mmo. I think someone already mentioned, its an online RPG and does it quite well. I prefer this over every mmorpg i've played over the past 2 decades, including MUDs(pvp still being better in a text world aside(WoTMUD pk ftw))

Elsonso

Dagre2 wrote: »

I agree, ESO isn't an mmo. I think someone already mentioned, its an online RPG and does it quite well. I prefer this over every mmorpg i've played over the past 2 decades, including MUDs(pvp still being better in a text world aside(WoTMUD pk ftw))

Do you still play that MUD?

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

I must say I don't really agree that ESO is not an MMO.
It has everything that an MMO has:

- Grinding
- LFM/LFG Content
- Guilds
- Trading centers/hubs
- Zillions of sets (much we don't use, but hey)
- Constant DLC and updates

So, stating that ESO is a online RPG is kind of missing the marker. I believe they pitch it as so to welcome those last ES RPG players that didn't make the leap back on Beta launch because they feared it would essentially just be an MMO and have no relation to solo games they had already enjoyed and completed.

So for me no...it is an MMO -> It's just presented as a RPG online + and scaled down to welcome in a new breed of player and/or those who have berating the product whilst waiting for a brand new ES solo RPG. (Yes it is a thing)

Dagre2

Elsonso wrote: »

Dagre2 wrote: »

I agree, ESO isn't an mmo. I think someone already mentioned, its an online RPG and does it quite well. I prefer this over every mmorpg i've played over the past 2 decades, including MUDs(pvp still being better in a text world aside(WoTMUD pk ftw))

Do you still play that MUD?

not really, played it a bit during the holidays but that's about the only time i play it now(past 4-5 years) since a lot of old players show up around then also. it has a lower pop than it used to but that has as many positives to it as negatives in that style of game. though i found the pvp more interesting when it had a 100-200 players on regularly, especially during the regular events it had.

the 'immortals'(devs) had a lot more leeway to create chaos in cities for entertainment than in any mmorpg that i've seen. imagine an mmorpg dev spawning in hordes of enemies and taking control of a boss to slaughter players until they finally manage to kill it. all the while, losing your gear if you die and you definitely were going to die, a lot, until players finally cleared out all the spawns with a group of naked peoples wielding the first crappy weapon they could loot after dying. ah, fun times.

LaerothKeykalyn

Uff, okay. Not MMO, Remove PVP!

But I love ESO PvP and cry every time I don't see any progress in this direction.

Goregrinder

thorwyn wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with definitions and categorizations?
Let's assume there is some sort of fail proof indicator (that everyone agrees on) to define and label a game. Let's assume the result is: ESO is a MMO. Or ESO is not a MMO. What would we gain from this wisdom and knowledge? What would that change?

Categorizing the things around is us how humans understand the universe. It's how context and frames of references are created, and without context or a frame of reference, two humans have a hard time exchanging or understanding each other's ideas.

For example, if I'm thirsty and I ask my good buddy to go into the fridge and grab me a cold one, I'm going to expect him to go to the refrigerator and bring me a cold beverage of some kind. Seams pretty reasonable right? But if he shows up with 10 loafs of bread and hands them to me, I'm going to look pretty confused. He's going to look pretty confused since he did exactly what I asked. But it turns out what I categorize as a "fridge" and a "cold one" isn't how he categorizes them.

So, the information gets lost in translation because we aren't following the same frame of reference, so the context of the data I provided him is non existent. Hypothetical situations aside, things like this happen in the real world, just look what happened to Pluto (it's messed up right?). Definitions of words are important, categorizations are important, context is important. These things are the backbone to creating a frame of reference we can all fall on when trying to convey information to each other, and without a frame of reference we are essentially just making meaningless sounds with our mouths (or fingers).

Whether it matters to you or not is going to obviously be up to you. But if we have a classification for "Rocket", and it has a list of parameters that are required for an object or thing in the universe to be classified as "Rocket", we can look at a Cat and check it against those parameters. If it does not pass that check, then we can safely say "Well...it's definitely NOT a Rocket..."

We can also do the opposite, by looking at an object (or abstract idea), and check it against a set of parameters. It will either meet them, or not meet them. Then we can say "Well...based on this set of parameters, Elder Scrolls Online is definitely a massively-multiplayer game, where you role-play a character, and is played 100% online..."