Hero Engine is failing us.

ZOS_Volpe

Greetings,

As we've removed a few comments that were baiting and bashing, this is a friendly reminder that comments need to adhere to our Community Rules to avoid thread derailment.

Thanks for your understanding.

Sluggy

So I think at this point people need to clarify what exactly they are talking about here. The client or the server? Or both?

The server is a non-starter. There's no way you're going to swap to something like Unreal and have it working out of the box. The tech simply doesn't exist and even if it did you'd still have to re-implement you entire game logic on top of that. It would provide exactly precisely zero value and fix zero problems.

The client is slightly more feasible. In theory as long as you're communicating with the correct protocols and the correct timing then the server doesn't care what the client is. As long as the data back and forth is the same it'll work. But even then it's still a boat load of work for what I personally feel would be a waste of effort. Models and textures wouldn't be a huge issue to convert. But shaders could be an absolute nightmare.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't care if the game is using the sexiest rendering techniques known to date. I've been playing games since they were just squares moving around on a CRT. I'm okay with and actually prefer when my video games look like video games. The real issue I (and many like me) have with ESO starts with the servers. Changing the client might improve the framerate ("might" is lifting a lot of weight here. No matter how good the tech is it only works if you have the skill to make it work). It might even improve rendering quality across the board. So what? It won't make Cyrodiil any less laggy when three ballgroups show up. It won't stop my inputs from dropping every twenty seconds when a massive zone event is going on. It won't prevent me from dropping connection every three minutes whether I'm invading Ash Keep or Rummaging through my pack to throw away stuff dropped by NPCs. But at least I'm willing to concede that some others might find the aesthetics more important to them and I'm willing to say that while it would still be a huge waste of money and effort it might at least be feasible to replace the client with something else.

SeaGtGruff

As far as I'm aware, there have been only two or three things that are not in the game which have specifically been "blamed" on the limitations of the game's engine:

• Capes
• Swimming
• Flying mounts

The second and third are essentially the same thing, as they both relate to the player's movement through a three-dimensional environment.

Swimming across the surface of water is a yes, and walking around the ground under water is also a yes, but swimming freely in all vertical and horizontal directions under water at every conceivable "elevation" above the ground is a no-go.

Same with flying around freely in the air-- "Flying" through the air by moving along on an invisible surface is okay, but flying freely in all directions is a no-go.

And capes are basically possible, but as I understand it, the reason they were removed during early game development was because they were stiff rather than moving fluidly, and they clipped through body parts and other items of clothing.

So unless an entire expansion were centered upon capes, swimming, and flying mounts, I don't see how the game's engine is preventing ZOS from adding new content to the game.

zaria

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They aren't limited by hero engine. It lets them make the type of games that they like to make and has been refined in house countless times.

They make sure the game works on old PCs and consoles. Given that this is a 10 year old game and that Covid prevented a ton of people from adapting consoles when the market to do so would have been hot, there's likely too big of a chunk of their playerbase still on old PCs and consoles to be able to afford to cut them loose. Because "What can they make?" isn't just about their engine. It's also about what their customers are using and money.

And I don't think the issue is the engine, outside it probably not very optimized and don't scale well.
Backend I think most stuff works now, outside the dungeon finder. But they keep adding more and more outfit styles and flashy mounts clients has to load into video memory and this will not stop as its an major income stream.

Toanis

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

And capes are basically possible, but as I understand it, the reason they were removed during early game development was because they were stiff rather than moving fluidly, and they clipped through body parts and other items of clothing.

So unless an entire expansion were centered upon capes, swimming, and flying mounts, I don't see how the game's engine is preventing ZOS from adding new content to the game.

Just play SWTOR to see the issues games using "not Hero engine" have with capes. But I'd say it's even worse in SWTOR with the story being told in cutscenes where physics get wonky when your char suddenly switches from running to standing still.

The advantages I see from a new modern engine, are that it would use modern GPU capabilities (i.e. prettier with more FPS), and make more effective use of 64 bit architecture than a game/engine that was natively developped for 32 bit. The cost would be adapting assets, landscapes, conversations, etc. created in the 17 years since development started. Not gonna happen.

zaria

OtarTheMad wrote: »

I don’t think it’s the engine entirely. A lot of it is because it’s on old consoles still. You combo that with quick-bandaid-type code to get bug fixes out fast over 10+ years and that will lead to issues.

https://youtu.be/aXIg2Ahndp8?si=W7gg2_5oh1LNM0JM

In that clip Firor says that they will continue to put stuff on older consoles as long as they can but also admits that it keeps them from doing things.

Yes back at launch you could play ESO on some seriously crappy laptops. I borrowed an very cheap "gaming" laptop from work going on an vacation, officially if some wanted help. Realistic to feed the horse and research crafting.
Now I did some quests in Greenshade as AD for first time, so very early. And it was weaker than an PS 4.
But you could not run the current game on it, and it was obviously 64 bit.

Now they could starting to hit graphic quality very hard if needed to keep frame rate up. But people had serious issues all the time overland in event zones back then Morrowind was released.
On PC I think its people setting up graphic settings in an nice an calm place. Now you want to face an Alkir dolmen during double xp as some trials are worse same with huge Cyrodil fights.

But again an major revenue stream is new outfits and flashy mounts and it will not be cut outside the missing dungeons and zones.

Amottica

Benzux wrote: »

Ignoring the part of this post that has no idea what genuine game development is like, do you really think the engine of all things is why we're getting less content? I am fairly sure that ZoS announced that they would be dropping the Q3 DLC a year or two ago in favour of focusing on base game improvements and bug fixes, rather than strictly new content, and if my memory serves me correctly, this was in fact something requested by the players.

We're not getting less DLC content because of the engine (????), we're getting less DLC because players wanted the game to work better and ZoS listened to feedback, making the decision to focus on that instead.

It is not, as the engine does not affect that. Zenimax has merely chosen to invest less money and man-hours into maintaining this game. We can speculate all day long as to why they made that decision, but it is purely a business decision.

Somehow, WoW has been able to expand that game for 20 years, so it seems to be a stretch to blame this decision on the engine.

Amottica

Theist_VII wrote: »

An engine in gaming is a tool; one with which powers the entire development process.

When your engine is only capable of producing low-quality assets within the production time table given, as high quality ones are taking far too long to produce or are taxing the performance of your game, you begin talks about what can be done.

The intent of the OP is not to be a doom post, but pose the question of whether it is time to consider the future of this game a bit more seriously.

The OP suggests the engine should be changed. That conversation is moot since it is not feasible. Many of us have pointed this out.

Further, other influences affect the quality of the game's assets. One is the minimum supported PC/console specs. Zenimax discontinued support for older CPUs and DirectX 10 because of this. The results show the difference in the graphics quality of the base game and the newer content.

In other words, it is better to drive a conversation on what can happen and what can be changed.

ZOS_Kevin

Just wanted to chime in here. Yeah an engine swap is not likely. That literally requires building ESO as a new game from the ground up. So that likely is not going to be the case. Halo going to Unreal does not mean that Halo Infinite is being ported to Unreal. It means that future Halo titles will be made using Unreal. However, that does not mean there are not things we can do to enhance visual quality with our current engine. We have passed this feedback to the team from various threads to see how we can tackle this problem in-game. So the team is aware.

Additionally, the engine is not responsible of content output. Every engine has things it can and cannot do. However content wise, our current cadence as some have already mentioned, was adjusting to player feedback from a few years ago. However we are hearing different feedback now and have passed that along to the powers that be.

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

Theist_VII

Sluggy wrote: »

So I think at this point people need to clarify what exactly they are talking about here.

The talks should be more…

“We need to consider the future, here is what I believe to be the problem, and here’s how I would fix it…”

Rather than people jumping into the conversation just to inject their biggest problems with the game currently into a vacuum of how that would be impacted by an engine swap.

A new engine won’t fix every problem we’re all encountering, but it would fix the one being mentioned in the OP, and it would support our developers so they could work much faster with a simplified production all while receiving support and collaboration for their most outstanding problems from other teams under the Microsoft umbrella.

Also yes, @ZOS_Kevin an engine swap of a current game is unlikely, but it’s not impossible. The current vibe being given from your team is that they are drowning, if that’s not the case, then so be it, but if it is, serious talks need to be had regarding the future of this game because I would love to see our 20th Anniversary after how great everything has been this year.

Erickson9610

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in here. Yeah an engine swap is not likely. That literally requires building ESO as a new game from the ground up. So that likely is not going to be the case. Halo going to Unreal does not mean that Halo Infinite is being ported to Unreal. It means that future Halo titles will be made using Unreal. However, that does not mean there are not things we can do to enhance visual quality with our current engine. We have passed this feedback to the team from various threads to see how we can tackle this problem in-game. So the team is aware.

Additionally, the engine is not responsible of content output. Every engine has things it can and cannot do. However content wise, our current cadence as some have already mentioned, was adjusting to player feedback from a few years ago. However we are hearing different feedback now and have passed that along to the powers that be.

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

I hope we continue to get features like the Infinite Archive and the revamped Battlegrounds instead of the Q3 dungeons and Q4 story zone. I'm sorry to the people who like that content, but I've found myself revisiting the Infinite Archive way more often than revisiting the Markarth DLC or the Stonethorn DLC, for instance. Repeatable content is way more enjoyable than PvE story content I'll only ever complete once.

Theist_VII

Erickson9610 wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in here. Yeah an engine swap is not likely. That literally requires building ESO as a new game from the ground up. So that likely is not going to be the case. Halo going to Unreal does not mean that Halo Infinite is being ported to Unreal. It means that future Halo titles will be made using Unreal. However, that does not mean there are not things we can do to enhance visual quality with our current engine. We have passed this feedback to the team from various threads to see how we can tackle this problem in-game. So the team is aware.

Additionally, the engine is not responsible of content output. Every engine has things it can and cannot do. However content wise, our current cadence as some have already mentioned, was adjusting to player feedback from a few years ago. However we are hearing different feedback now and have passed that along to the powers that be.

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

I hope we continue to get features like the Infinite Archive and the revamped Battlegrounds instead of the Q3 dungeons and Q4 story zone. I'm sorry to the people who like that content, but I've found myself revisiting the Infinite Archive way more often than revisiting the Markarth DLC or the Stonethorn DLC, for instance. Repeatable content is way more enjoyable than PvE story content I'll only ever complete once.

I agree too, but there’s no denying that it is less.

A sound approach to the problem would be to encorporate all of it each year instead of one or the other, or one less dungeon pack replaced by a NEW system similar to Infinite Archive.

This Battlegrounds update is great, but it’s not adding anything, we lost the old battlegrounds to pave way for it.

VouxeTheMinotaur

@ZOS_Kevin Completely understandable, we appreciate the chime in.
It is pretty cool to see that you guys plan ahead so far for future content.

If i could backpack off Erickson's post above, I'd also like to add to the feedback that content like Infinite Archive, or for me personally, Arena's like 4-man Dragonstar and solo content like Vateshran are pretty fun as well.

I would hope that solo content, like Vateshran Hollows, is somewhere in those future plans. taking IA's performance and show into consideration, I'm very excited for new solo / arena content

Theist_VII

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

Also want to highlight this, perhaps sharing with the rest of us the general basis of what those new systems are before they are fully revealed, maybe 12-16 months out, would give the community, us, the consumers, the ability to give feedback when it is still actionable.

Pelanora

Theist_VII wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Actually, if you go back and look at what they said, they replaced Hero with their own engine incrementally. I dunno if anything is left, but the parts people are complaining about look like they are all ZOS.

It says Hero engine when you boot up the game using 64 bit launcher. They have always been pretty clear they heavily modified the engine though, so ya.

…starting with the server and network communications, then content creation tools, the client renderer, and the rest of the engine.

His words, not mine. 😂

Must explain why current ESO has the worst positional desyc I have ever seen in any game, don’t believe me? Open ESO on Epic and Steam and stand next to each other, then walk one forward and watch the other screen.

Really enlightening experience.

Why what happens

Theist_VII

There’s around a 1.5 second positional desync, I forget if it was Rich or an old team member that responded to an old complaint almost a decade ago laughing about how not all AoE indicators have true radii.

They do have accurate radii, your character’s just not where they appear on your screen.

Elsonso

Theist_VII wrote: »

Must explain why current ESO has the worst positional desyc I have ever seen in any game, don’t believe me? Open ESO on Epic and Steam and stand next to each other, then walk one forward and watch the other screen.

Theist_VII wrote: »

There’s around a 1.5 second positional desync, I forget if it was Rich or an old team member that responded to an old complaint almost a decade ago laughing about how not all AoE indicators have true radii.

They do have accurate radii, your character’s just not where they appear on your screen.

Having multiple accounts, and having developed addons that required I be on two accounts at the same time so I can observe an active account from an account that is just standing there, I can say that this might as well be considered a core feature of the game.

It is why a player can arrive at a resource just ahead of someone else, but they get it instead. They get there first, even if it looks differently. They could have been a half second, or longer, ahead of you. Internet latency (x2) plus server latency. When in the game, we live in the past.

What is really annoying is how the game stops sending positional data after a mob dies, so the body cannot be looted. It looks like it can be, but it isn't actually there due to desync. Looting it depends on either getting area loot, or figuring out where the server thinks it is and hope it is close enough that the client allows loot and the server agrees you are close enough.

Sluggy

Theist_VII wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

Also want to highlight this, perhaps sharing with the rest of us the general basis of what those new systems are before they are fully revealed, maybe 12-16 months out, would give the community, us, the consumers, the ability to give feedback when it is still actionable.

Now here's a suggestion that I think can be actionable and will actually result in a much better product

Dagoth_Rac

Elsonso wrote: »

What is really annoying is how the game stops sending positional data after a mob dies, so the body cannot be looted. It looks like it can be, but it isn't actually there due to desync. Looting it depends on either getting area loot, or figuring out where the server thinks it is and hope it is close enough that the client allows loot and the server agrees you are close enough.

If you run far enough away and run back, the client will "redraw" the corpse based on where the server says it is, rather than where client thought it was at moment of death. You can then loot it.

umagon

What I am hoping for is that; zos has been secretly working on ESO 2.0 and plans to end major developments for ESO. And start our new adventures on the other continent Akavir, we have been in Tamriel for decades over the different game titles.

A 2.0 would let them redesign all the systems based on what they learned from 1.0. I would expect even more character customization, better large scale pvp experience, and even better housing systems like better lighting. To me it would be worth starting over again with fresh characters and a new game.

CrazyKitty

umagon wrote: »

What I am hoping for is that; zos has been secretly working on ESO 2.0 and plans to end major developments for ESO. And start our new adventures on the other continent Akavir, we have been in Tamriel for decades over the different game titles.

A 2.0 would let them redesign all the systems based on what they learned from 1.0. I would expect even more character customization, better large scale pvp experience, and even better housing systems like better lighting. To me it would be worth starting over again with fresh characters and a new game.

Kevin just made it clear that isn't happening.

The take home message I got from Kevin's post above is that ESO performance issues aren't getting fixed. Even though ZOS knew clear back in 2014 that the Hero engine wasn't going to work long term ZOS made no effort to put the game on an engine that could support the game. So ESO how it is now is just how it's going to be from here on out. The time for ZOS to take measures to keep ESO performing well long term was 8-10 years ago and they didn't do what was needed than and are not now either. Take it or leave it.

NotNi.ya

umagon wrote: »

What I am hoping for is that; zos has been secretly working on ESO 2.0 and plans to end major developments for ESO. And start our new adventures on the other continent Akavir, we have been in Tamriel for decades over the different game titles.

A 2.0 would let them redesign all the systems based on what they learned from 1.0. I would expect even more character customization, better large scale pvp experience, and even better housing systems like better lighting. To me it would be worth starting over again with fresh characters and a new game.

Honestly, I wouldn't waste money on ESO2 just for it to turn out the same down the line.

Stafford197

umagon wrote: »

What I am hoping for is that; zos has been secretly working on ESO 2.0 and plans to end major developments for ESO. And start our new adventures on the other continent Akavir, we have been in Tamriel for decades over the different game titles.

A 2.0 would let them redesign all the systems based on what they learned from 1.0. I would expect even more character customization, better large scale pvp experience, and even better housing systems like better lighting. To me it would be worth starting over again with fresh characters and a new game.

I do not want an ESO 2.0 from ZOS. Sure it could enhance the game on a graphical and performance front, but it can’t fix poor decision-making. Most issues in this game are due to product mismanagement rather than game limitations.

The game at launch did not feature a Thieves Guild, nor a Dark Brotherhood, nor the ability to even Steal…. in fact pre-release there was lots of criticism directed at ZOS since they announced how even First Person POV was not planned. And now in 2024 after 10 years of lessons, we’ve had the worst chapter by far and weakest content year.

I’d just much rather have a TES-based MMO handled by a different team, who can make a game where the TES title is the smallest selling point instead of the only selling point.

G1Countdown

Well if content is now trending down as in less content year over year, I think ZOS should begin development on ESO 2 (whatever that is). I'm not a fan of dungeons, but I'm dismayed at the lack of content in that area. Let alone the lack of content in Cyrodil, DLCs and chapters.

Creating game systems is fine and all, but it is becoming real clear that the purpose of these systems is so that production on the games content can be scaled back.

But, back to the topic at hand, the game engine is severely limited. Add on that ESO is specifically milking OLD consoles, it is soon time for development to plan for the future, either drop console (old) support or plan a successor of some sort. Or something in-between that allows for progress.

ArchMikem

If ESO is to ever switch Engines, then it's going to be for an ESO 2. Simple as.

There is no way this can be done with ESO. Easily or quickly, anyway. And you would find a way to complain about the process too. It would take forever, cost a lot of money, and be a hot mess of bugs.

Anachronian

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in here. Yeah an engine swap is not likely. That literally requires building ESO as a new game from the ground up. So that likely is not going to be the case. Halo going to Unreal does not mean that Halo Infinite is being ported to Unreal. It means that future Halo titles will be made using Unreal. However, that does not mean there are not things we can do to enhance visual quality with our current engine. We have passed this feedback to the team from various threads to see how we can tackle this problem in-game. So the team is aware.

Additionally, the engine is not responsible of content output. Every engine has things it can and cannot do. However content wise, our current cadence as some have already mentioned, was adjusting to player feedback from a few years ago. However we are hearing different feedback now and have passed that along to the powers that be.

One thing to keep in mind is that shifting content cadence is not easy because we are working on content as far out as 18-24 months. So shifting things causes all kinds of hurdles. But we hear the feedback about content and are not taking it lightly. We have passed it on. Any other updates are not for me to share right now.

I look forward to when you can share them, and hope that what's being worked on works out well.

IviRo

Theist_VII wrote: »

Over the last couple of years, it has become quite clear that the Hero Engine is throttling progression of The Elder Scrolls: Online.

We have gone from two quarters of dungeon packs with a chapter and a zone to explore, to a dungeon pack and chapter with a new system, to only an update of a previous one.

Development should be ramping up, not down.

Owned by Microsoft, a company that just moved their flagship IP from Slipspace to Unreal, one can’t help but wonder if ZOS should be moving their assets to Unreal in kind?

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248546/halo-the-new-era-begins/#:~:text=It lacked content, had in,content due to the engine.

"Moving to Unreal Engine has so many benefits, let me explain. First, the engine is a lot more universal for staff to work on, it's the default engine across learning game development and is incredibly powerful and reliable. Keep in mind that Unreal Engine will also be modified to work on the games, much like how The Coalition use Unreal Engine for Gears of War. Speaking of The Coalition, moving to Unreal also allows internal teams to jump on and help with development and content, so expect The Coalition to help Halo Studios in the near future with game development etc, something that would be harder to do with the current Slipspace. So, adding the best experts with Unreal Engine into the game development can do wonders for a game, and no one knows Unreal better than The Coalition. This change will not only improve the visuals of Halo, it will also guarantee faster release content, more content and even more games."

About Game Engine

Elder Scrolls Online is a great game with very good potential because ZeniMax Online consists of professional game developers and it can be seen at the screenshots. Screenshots and videos show that ESO world is made using good game engine. Every fan knows that ZeniMax Online had licensed HeroEngine not so long ago (it is a relatively new game engine used in Star Wars: The Old Republic). There were a lot of rumors about HeroEngine in TES online after the game was announced. Some people say that it is used in Elder Scrolls Online. What engine will actually be used in ESO? Let’s find out.

ESO and HeroEngine
Let me tell you some facts about HeroEngine. ZeniMax Online started the company from scratch. They did not have technologies in the beginning and they had to create new MMO engine themselves. That’s why they created and licensed HeroEngine. It was used in Star Wars: The Old Republic and they started using it for Elder Scrolls Online. It was a useful tool for developers to use to prototype areas and game design concepts, and it provided the ability to get art into the game that was visible. It helped to work on the game’s art style. Developers tell that HeroEngine was used as a good tool to get some new ideas in the game. But it does not mean that it will be used in the final version of the game without any changes. ZeniMax tell that HeroEngine helped them to get started. But final version of Elder Scrolls Online will have its own unique engine. Everything in the game’s engine will be written for this game. ESO will be a new MMO with its own features. Developers say that the main difference between ESO and other MMO games will be advanced social features. It is impossible to implement such changes without modifying engine.


Anyway engine is only a basis of a game. It does not define what kind of content, or even what type of game, will be made. Stability, graphical awesomeness, and other features depend on the ability of programmers and designers. Everything depends on how all features will be realized. Even a super engine will not help if the staff is not professional. ZeniMax have only professional game developers in the team. It guarantees that the game will have very high quality and the game will be stable, beautiful and interesting.

About System Requirements
Here is a new in game screenshot with Black Marsh on it. As you can see ZeniMax is not wasting time. Last screenshots show that the game is looking better and better. It will have very good graphics and of course will require a strong computer. But do not worry. ZeniMax is going to make it run on both PC and Mac that have been bought in the last five years. It is good news for those gamers whose computers are not very fast. Developers are going to make high quality graphics and gameplay for all gamers. They are writing engine that will allow running the game using both old and modern computers. It will require ZeniMax to write their own renderer with own shaders. Of course modern computers will show all game’s beauty but players with slow computers will also be able to play and have a lot of fun.

https://elderscrollsonline.info/news/about-game-engine

Pelanora

^^^ ??

What the actual.....

Aliniel

Pelanora wrote: »

^^^ ??

What the actual.....

That article reminds me of disinfo media, or cheap government propaganda

LPapirius

Aliniel wrote: »

Pelanora wrote: »

^^^ ??

What the actual.....

That article reminds me of disinfo media, or cheap government propaganda

Agreed. That is a very suspicious article. I wouldn't believe anything claimed within.

There is no publication date, and the one link in the article gives a 404 error. Plus, it reads like it was put together by an AI or at the very least someone who's not an english speaking person when ZOS is an American company.

So ya, there is a lot wrong with this article just on it's face.