free poker money

Posts Tagged ‘GOOD’

PC Gamer The Elder Scrolls Online Review 68

PC Gamer The Elder Scrolls Online Review 68

It not really a mechanic, but their free to play system is probably the best. I can go back to pay to play, GW2 spoiled me when it comes to be able to come and go as I please without having to worry about buying expansion packs or whatever. The more active combat, while not perfect makes the old ways of standing and trading blows feel archaic. I really like the questing system, though this is more of a personal taste thing. Above all, I love how the game encourages cooperation between players, with the big events and instanced resource nodes, instead of lone wolfing things. In past MMOs, seeing another player would be a drag, they were there to take your ore or your wood or your quest mob. In GW2, seeing another player is usually a pleasure because if you help each other, the game is going to reward you for doing so, even if the reward is tiny.

GW2 didn introduce most of this stuff, but they combined it into something that makes the sum of its parts kinda amazing, or at least really good. I feel like this stuff should be what modern MMOs use as a floor and make the stuff that worked in GW2 even better.

Because the decision to have a sub based game or not isn a decision the designers make. It is a corporate decision, most of the time. And subscriptions usually win because they are more reliable than micro transactions. Subscriptions give you a good sense of what your income is going to be, what you can do with that, and whether it sustainable.

A switch from sub to to play is possible if they decide it is a better option, but once you got free to play you can change to being subscription based (Well, technically you can, but good luck dealing with the shitstorm that follows).

Personally, I would think that a GOOD subscription game doesn pad too much. You want a little padding because you want people to feel they can just get everything whenever they want with minimal effort.

A good subscription game motivates people to subscribe (and stay subbed) by releasing good content on a regular basis, in a kind of way that GW2 has been doing (and afaik RIFT also puts out regular content patches, but I haven played it a long time so maybe not anymore).

You not actually paying them by the hour. You paying them by the month, and however many hours you can fit into that month. They need to balance the time you need to spend to get somewhere with a gamer need to see progression. People won stay subbed if things take too long, because it not very motivating to not see yourself progress much even though you playing for a long time.

What I am saying is you can blame a community for being wary of a product thats not getting good attention, MMO or single player. The responsibility of promoting, and enhancing the game lies solely with the developer and if they fail to put out a quality product that people want and it fails its on them, not people who don want to waste their money of mediocre or sub par products.

Whenever you invest in an MMO your taking a gamble, and just because you think its great doesnt mean it everyone does or should. If the people playing it lose out because it tanks they lost the bet that it would be able to gather enough good attention to make it in a very competitive market.

Its like buying stock in a start up company, sure you may think its great and will do well but if it doesnt succeed its not the fault of the people who didn invest in a risky investment, its on the company that either didn promote enough or didn make a high enough quality product.

EDIT: Considering this has happened with TOR, WAR, and other MMOs they are not going to be burned again.

This is exactly why people are skeptical. They spent money on MMOs that made big promises and utterly failed to deliver on them. ESO made some big promises to get hype up but a lot of people are looking at it and seeing it looks a lot like every other MMO that comes along, same basic features reskined with some minute changes to add “flavor” and that doesn make for a game that will last.

For as long as I been in the beta, I been a pretty vocal detractor for this game. I been called a hater, and I don really blame those that think so, because eventually I got to the point where I actually hoped the game would fail. It wasn enough for me to just not play, I began lobbying other people to not play the game.

Because I do want the game to fail. I don want to reward companies for making games like ESO. Taking incredible potential and squandering it on mediocre cash grabs.

While I understand why some might dismiss my negativity as hate, they are still wrong though. I don hate the game, I just so disappointed by it. When it was first announced, I had nothing but excitement and hope for the game; it was what we all had been itching for ever since the success of Morrowind.

I think most of us that criticize this game can relate: We don dislike the game for what it is. It actually pretty fun, and in a vacuum it might have been great. But the game doesn exist in a vacuum, it exists and depends on the franchise and the circumstances that hold it up. And with those in mind, it should have been so much more than it is. This game should have been exceptional. So no, we don dislike the game for what it is, we dislike it for what it could have been.

I am one of the people who disagrees strongly with this review. I feel as though the reviewer went in biased against the game, though I understand the criticisms some level at ESO. Allow me to explain my thoughts on the game, and hopefully they might enable people to hear the point of view from the other side of the coin:

The Elder Scrolls Online has had a massive degree of anti hype surrounding it ever since its first reveal in Game Informer years ago. It been a series of PR disasters and missteps, and as a result people have an extremely negative perception of ESO. This colours their impressions of the game significantly.