• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Buzzman

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,549
Question for you all here (and especially those who are playing it):

Is this game OBJECTIVELY broken? Is it objectively a bad game because of how quantifiably broken it is?
It's pretty buggy, expect server crashes and random resets, glitchy mobs/quests etc. But it's not literally unplayable. If there had been a better game here then you could probably stomach most of the technical issues, but as it is there's nothing of value beneath all the bugs.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,128
Question for you all here (and especially those who are playing it):

Is this game OBJECTIVELY broken? Is it objectively a bad game because of how quantifiably broken it is?

only problems i have are some quest progression got lost and it can get stuttery. on my end i couldn't really parse how it's a broken game but many others are experiencing a tire fire allegedly, so it is what it is
 

Garlador

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
14,131
Question for you all here (and especially those who are playing it):

Is this game OBJECTIVELY broken? Is it objectively a bad game because of how quantifiably broken it is?
It certainly feels like the buggiest game Bethesda has ever put out, easily the buggiest major game release this year, and I'd say it only has a fraction of the quality content its predecessors have.

My suggestion is to avoid until long after they get around to patching it or modders salvage it, and even THEN it's so messy I think it'd still rank as one of their buggiest games. It's staggering.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
14,983
The game isn't unplayable at all, it's just buggy as all hell. Wife and me haven't encountered a single game breaking or ending bug. There is lot of annoying glitches, but nothing that makes the game broken or unplayable. Most glitches are fixes by logging in and out of the game too.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,143
Washington
I see what you are getting at here, but I really don't think that that the Bethesda style is that dramatically different than the majority of open world RPGs. I would say the primary difference between something like Witcher 3 and Skyrim is that Skyrim's primary storyline is far, far thinner. There may be a degree or two of more freedom in Skyrim, but I wouldn't consider that a substantial difference. I get that most open ended, open world games have bottle necks and funnel you down certain paths at certain points the in game, and the Bethesda Game Studios approach avoids doing that, but those other games still allow for massive amount of freedom. I consider that distinction to be relatively minor. However, I do see what you are saying.

I really cannot agree here. Especially if you are going to use Witcher as your comparison. They are not the same games at all and while I admit Witcher has less flaws for the kind of game it is I still had way more fun with Skyrim, flaws and all. Because I much prefer the kind of game Bethesda's is trying to make. And no you don't play bethesda games cause of story. That's how they get away with crappy writing. It would definitely make their games better, true, but that's not the main thing that makes them fun.

And sorry, that is not a minor distinction. The only way I can see you saying that is that what you enjoy in an rpg is different from why people enjoy bethesda games. No offense but it is people like you who I wish would stop criticizing Bethesda games cause you don't get why they are special and would probably try to turn them into Witcher which honestly would destroy the games for me.

Yes, there are definitely things they need to fix but it is stuff like bring more options on different ways to solve a solution or even choose if you want to be part of the solution over the problem. Like in Skyrim I'm annoyed you can only help the thieves guild and the head lady is marked as essential so you can't even kill her even if there is no quest to stop the thieves guild (shoot Witcher can only kill npcs marked as your opponents. That is very different philosophy over bethesda games where you can decide you are a total monster and kill everyone in the game, save essential marked npcs which a lot of Bethesda fans including me are annoyed they even mark any npc essential). And I'm annoyed that you get a really cool questline if you join the assassin's guild but if you decide to go against it you just get one quest with dinky rewards.

These are things you wouldn't complain about Witcher cause the choices are more which does Geralt think is the better good. There is no joining the evil guild or doing something that is totally against a certain character type. You make decisions in dialogue and that lets the game mark your enemies. Where as when I was trying to be recruited by the assasins guild I decided my character was not amused at their test and annoyed at being kidnapped so I turned around and killed the quest giver. That gave me a new quest just by doing that (granted if I played her game I'd have gotten a way better quest line). Witcher is not a role play your own person and choose how they affect the world type game. You have a set goal and it is what geralt's personality aims are and all decisions are focused on how he might decide.

Bethesda's games are more inspired by old fashioned pen and paper RPGs that give you the freedom to make your own story within the story. Here's the situation, here's a choice of tools do what's you will. They just keep getting worse at that. Really the games you can compare them best to are turn based RPGs.
 
Last edited:

Famassu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,186
no i'm not trolling, tell me what you find wrong with this opinion. i've stated my opinion that games arent living up to what they could be
You must be trolling because Bethesda's games past Morrowind are the definition of dumbing down a genre and a genre not living up to what they could be, outside of offering expansive 3d worlds to explore (even then, I think Bethesda's world design is pretty poor outside of "they're big & open"). Stats that matter less and less with each subsequent game they make, storytelling and choice & consequences that just keeps getting simpler and simpler, character development with no real choice involved because you can be awesome at everything, combat that requires zero thought, poor writing etc. Compare Fallout 2 vs. Bethesda Fallouts & how it handles RPG mechanics and choice and consequence in the game and there's a drastic drop in depth in how you can handle situations & people.

Fallout 76 is the most recent and biggest simplification yet. It's not some ambitious attempt at genre-defining complexity or depth or a forerunner that's ahead of its time. It's Fallout dumbed down to its simplest aspects & stripped away from some of its most defining aspects and even then, what remains hasn't been done well. It might be fine if they had really upped their game on those few things that still remain but they've seemingly done a mediocre job at best of even that. It doesn't sound like a particularly strong shooter, the looting & crafting aspects seems poor, the human element stripped away from storytelling makes it less interesting etc.

If you want games to be more than they are, then Fallout 76 is the opposite direction of where they should be going.
 

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,891
I really cannot agree here. Especially if you are going to use Witcher as your comparison. They are not the same games at all and while I admit Witcher has less flaws for the kind of game it is I still had way more fun with Skyrim, flaws and all. Because I much prefer the kind of game Bethesda's is trying to make. And no you don't play bethesda games cause of story. That's how they get away with crappy writing. It would definitely make their games better, true, but that's not the main thing that makes them fun.

And sorry, that is not a minor distinction. The only way I can see you saying that is that what you enjoy in an rpg is different from why people enjoy bethesda games. No offense but it is people like you who I wish would stop criticizing Bethesda games cause you don't get why they are special and would probably try to turn them into Witcher which honestly would destroy the games for me.

Yes, there are definitely things they need to fix but it is stuff like bring more options on different ways to solve a solution or even choose if you want to be part of the solution over the problem. Like in Skyrim I'm annoyed you can only help the thieves guild and the head lady is marked as essential so you can't even kill her even if there is no quest to stop the thieves guild (shoot Witcher can only kill npcs marked as your opponents. That is very different philosophy over bethesda games where you can decide you are a total monster and kill everyone in the game, save essential marked npcs which a lot of Bethesda fans including me are annoyed they even mark any npc essential). And I'm annoyed that you get a really cool questline if you join the assassin's guild but if you decide to go against it you just get one quest with dinky rewards.

These are things you wouldn't complain about Witcher cause the choices are more which does Geralt think is the better good. There is no joining the evil guild or doing something that is totally against a certain character type. You make decisions in dialogue and that lets the game mark your enemies. Where as when I was trying to be recruited by the assasins guild I decided my character was not amused at their test and annoyed at being kidnapped so I turned around and killed the quest giver. That gave me a new quest just by doing that (granted if I played her game I'd have gotten a way better quest line). Witcher is not a role play your own person and choose how they affect the world type game. You have a set goal and it is what geralt's personality aims are and all decisions are focused on how he might decide.

Bethesda's games are more inspired by old fashioned pen and paper RPGs that give you the freedom to make your own story within the story. Here's the situation, here's a choice of tools do what's you will. They just keep getting worse at that. Really the games you can compare them best to are turn based RPGs.

My main point isn't that Betheda's games should become more restricted, or focus on having a more substantial narrative (though a better written one certainly wouldn't hurt). My point is that they need to run well, look good, and be fun to play. The freedom isn't enough. They may have more freedom than other games, sure, but there are lots of substantially better games that have a staggering amount of freedom as well.

I'm not knew to Bethesda Games' work. I have been playing their games for a very long time now. I respected the ambition of Morrowind, but I could never get past its aesthetics. I loved Oblivion, and felt like that was the first big leap of that generation (to be fair, it was also the first game I played on a HD TV). I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit, despite the game being a bit of a mess (and despite me greatly preferring Fallout 1 and 2). I thought Skyrim was at least fun for a while, but the level of jank and brokenness certainly was starting to wear on me at this point. For me, Fallout 4 was painful on every level, and it was the heaping bail of straw that broke the camel's back. I should get to voice my criticisms. They aren't unfounded.
 
Last edited:

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,143
Washington
You must be trolling because Bethesda's games past Morrowind are the definition of dumbing down a genre and a genre not living up to what they could be, outside of offering expansive 3d worlds to explore (even then, I think Bethesda's world design is pretty poor outside of "they're big & open"). Stats that matter less and less with each subsequent game they make, storytelling and choice & consequences that just keeps getting simpler and simpler, character development with no real choice involved because you can be awesome at everything, combat that requires zero thought, poor writing etc. Compare Fallout 2 vs. Bethesda Fallouts & how it handles RPG mechanics and choice and consequence in the game and there's a drastic drop in depth in how you can handle situations & people.

Fallout 76 is the most recent and biggest simplification yet. It's not some ambitious attempt at genre-defining complexity or depth or a forerunner that's ahead of its time. It's Fallout dumbed down to its simplest aspects & stripped away from some of its most defining aspects and even then, what remains hasn't been done well. It might be fine if they had really upped their game on those few things that still remain but they've seemingly done a mediocre job at best of even that. It doesn't sound like a particularly strong shooter, the looting & crafting aspects seems poor, the human element stripped away from storytelling makes it less interesting etc.

If you want games to be more than they are, then Fallout 76 is the opposite direction of where they should be going.

I agree with this but I will say 76 doing this doesn't bug me because it is an offshoot and not trying to be the same type game. It's a multiplayer game for one which already kills the idea it's an rpg (choices mattering just aren't going to work in a multiplayer because you have different people all playing the game and it is supposed to be endless. If they allowed everyone's choices to truly matter either the game ends really soon or they would constantly have to monitor and write new story depending on where all the players were taking the game).

Now I am more interested in how they treat their next single player, starfield, to see if they continue on this path of dumbing down the rpg or if maybe they improve finally. Far harbour I think shows they still know how to make a decent rpg. Though I partly blame Emil cause it seems when he is involved is where you see bad story/dumbing down. He is not so involved in the dlc of the games.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,143
Washington
My main point isn't that Betheda's games should become more restricted, or focus on having a more substantial narrative (though a better written one certainly wouldn't hurt). My point is that if they need to run well, look good, and be fun to play. The freedom isn't enough. They may have more freedom than other games, sure, but there are lots of substantially better games that have a staggering amount of freedom as well.

I'm not knew to Bethesda Games' work. I have been playing their games for a very long time now. I respected the ambition of Morrowind, but I could never get past its aesthetics. I loved Oblivion, and felt like that was the first big leap of that generation (to be fair, it was also the first game I played on a HD TV). I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit, despite the game being a bit of a mess (and despite me greatly preferring Fallout 1 and 2). I thought Skyrim was at least fun for a while, but the level of jank and brokenness certainly was starting to wear on me at this point. For me, Fallout 4 was painful on every level, and it was the heaping bail of straw that broke the camel's back. I should get to voice my criticisms. They aren't unfounded.

And I'd disagree the freedom isn't enough and doesn't make them distinct from other games. Or that they aren't fun to play. I have spent hundreds of hours in each of their games that I've played. Graphics and buggyness though are the last things I want them to focus on (Though I don't think they are invalid complaints, just not the thing that bothers me the most and honestly there are things I think they could sacrifice that would make that better that I would be way more upset they sacrificed then happy they made it less janky). I agree it should be fixed but I'm more worried about where they are taking the freedom and rpg aspects.

And when you say that it is only minor differences between it and Witcher it makes me feel that you don't care about the major difference that is why I love their games way more than Witcher. So yes, it does make me feel you would want to turn it into Witcher as you seem not to value the philosophy difference between the games and barely even notice it. That your priorities are different in what you want in a game then what Bethesda has to offer. Because bethesda does have its strengths and I have yet to see another game offer the same joy I get out of their games. Closest I've found is turn based games which some/many do it better (fallout 2 comes to mind) but I like the action combat Bethesda brings.
 

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,891
And I'd disagree the freedom isn't enough and doesn't make them distinct from other games. Or that they aren't fun to play. I have spent hundreds of hours in each of their games that I've played. Graphics and buggyness though are the last things I want them to focus on (Though I don't think they are invalid complaints, just not the thing that bothers me the most and honestly there are things I think they could sacrifice that would make that better that I would be way more upset they sacrificed then happy they made it less janky). I agree it should be fixed but I'm more worried about where they are taking the freedom and rpg aspects.

And when you say that it is only minor differences between it and Witcher it makes me feel that you don't care about the major difference that is why I love their games way more than Witcher. So yes, it does make me feel you would want to turn it into Witcher as you seem not to value the philosophy difference between the games and barely even notice it. That your priorities are different in what you want in a game then what Bethesda has to offer. Because bethesda does have its strengths and I have yet to see another game offer the same joy I get out of their games. Closest I've found is turn based games which some/many do it better (fallout 2 comes to mind) but I like the action combat Bethesda brings.

Once again, dude, I never claimed that they should turn the series into the Witcher series. I didn't even imply it. You are extrapolating that from nothing. I have just said that their games need to start being able to compete in the graphics, stability and gameplay departments or they are going to get left behind.

I guess this is an agree to disagree situation, which seems odd as my position is literally just for Bethesda to do what they are doing, but to not release their games broken, ugly, and with gameplay systems that aren't fun (no one likes the gunplay in their Fallout games, and the combat isn't great in the ES games either).
 

g23

Member
Oct 27, 2017
822
For this game to succeed, I feel like it needs to lean into it's survival mechanics more. Make private servers and persistence a thing.

The reason why game's like Rust, Conan Exiles, and ARK work is because of the emergent gameplay that comes out of having a sense of community develop on a server. This game has NONE of that since every rando you meet In the world will be gone in your next session due to matchmaking. The opportunities for roleplaying or forging rivalries/friendships are moot since nothing is persistent. What else would be nice, is for Bethesda to up the player count to maybe 40 players. As of now the world feels way too empty with how huge the map is.

These changes along with fixing all the technical bugs, QOL stuff, and improving framerate/stability would put 76 back on the right track imo.
 

Persephone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,408
I mean I get the notion of "endearing Bethesda jank" because there's stuff like "getting hit by a giant's club ragdolls you into the stratosphere" or "you can ride horses up vertical surfaces" or "I fast-travelled to Rorikstead and when it loaded a cow fell out of the sky and died" (tru story) which is harmless and funny and you can overlook it because it doesn't detract from the experience. But the game-breaking stuff is just inexcusable and I'm glad that after getting away with it for so long it's finally coming back to bite them in the ass.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Question for you all here (and especially those who are playing it):

Is this game OBJECTIVELY broken? Is it objectively a bad game because of how quantifiably broken it is?
I've had tons of crashes, tons of glitchy encounters, tons of broken quests, tons of graphical glitches. It's the bare minimum of playable, though. Whether or not the game is even worth experiencing looking past all that.... I don't think so.
 

Demacabre

Member
Nov 20, 2017
2,058
crazy to see people hand-wave bullshit and defend this game

Games aren't about story, solid working experience, tight controls, deep quest design, consistent lore to a franchise, memorable npcs, rewarding competitive pvp, or technology pushing graphics. It's about fun with friends. Nothing tops fun with friends. Nothing.
 
Last edited:

Edge

A King's Landing
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,012
Celle, Germany
Games aren't about story, solid working experience, tight controls, quest design, consistent lore to a franchise, memorable npcs, competitive pvp, or technology pushing graphics. It's about fun with friends. Nothing tops fun with friends. Nothing.


But that doesn't change the fact that this game is utter garbage.
"It's fun with friends" can't be a real argument here, everything makes fun with friends no matter how bad it is.
 

Makai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
103
But that doesn't change the fact that this game is utter garbage.
"It's fun with friends" can't be a real argument here, everything makes fun with friends no matter how bad it is.
He was obviously being sarcastic lol. I know it's hard to tell because it's so close to what the apologists actually say.
 

Demacabre

Member
Nov 20, 2017
2,058
But that doesn't change the fact that this game is utter garbage.
"It's fun with friends" can't be a real argument here, everything makes fun with friends no matter how bad it is.

Pfft no other game was fun with friends before this one.

Also I was being sarcastic. Sorry should have included the tag in hindsight.

He was obviously being sarcastic lol. I know it's hard to tell because it's so close to what the apologists actually say.

Yeaaaah I should have included a /s. It is too close for comfort to what "enthusiasts" are unironically saying.
 

Edge

A King's Landing
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,012
Celle, Germany
I know that this post was sarcasm, but that doesn't change the fact that the last part is indeed very true and a huge argument for many people.
 

MrBob

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,668
Somehow this video popped up in my related video feeds. I almost didn't watch this review but I'm glad I did. This might be the best reviewer I've seen pop up on youtube in a long time. Seems like a satire review with some nuggets of truth dropped in and it's fantastic.



Thought it was pretty funny. There is a red dead redemption 2 "review" up too.
 
Dec 4, 2017
11,481
Brazil


I believe they made a fair point saying that even when a media outlet hated the game the score was 5, so the 0 deserves spotlight

"Terrible and complete broken game
Score: 5/10 "
Wtf
 
Dec 4, 2017
11,481
Brazil
Somehow this video popped up in my related video feeds. I almost didn't watch this review but I'm glad I did. This might be the best reviewer I've seen pop up on youtube in a long time. Seems like a satire review with some nuggets of truth dropped in and it's fantastic.



Thought it was pretty funny. There is a red dead redemption 2 "review" up too.

dude, probably the best review I've ever seen
LOL
 

ItIsOkBro

Happy New Year!!
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,476
Somehow this video popped up in my related video feeds. I almost didn't watch this review but I'm glad I did. This might be the best reviewer I've seen pop up on youtube in a long time. Seems like a satire review with some nuggets of truth dropped in and it's fantastic.



Thought it was pretty funny. There is a red dead redemption 2 "review" up too.

surprisingly good framing device for a review

edit: todd howard ted talk I am dead
 

Rayne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,633
Yes, there are definitely things they need to fix but it is stuff like bring more options on different ways to solve a solution or even choose if you want to be part of the solution over the problem. Like in Skyrim I'm annoyed you can only help the thieves guild and the head lady is marked as essential so you can't even kill her even if there is no quest to stop the thieves guild (shoot Witcher can only kill npcs marked as your opponents. That is very different philosophy over bethesda games where you can decide you are a total monster and kill everyone in the game, save essential marked npcs which a lot of Bethesda fans including me are annoyed they even mark any npc essential). And I'm annoyed that you get a really cool questline if you join the assassin's guild but if you decide to go against it you just get one quest with dinky rewards.

.

There's a mod that fixes that ;) But yeah I agree with you I don't really play Bethesda games for the story (though it not being awful is helpful). I only finished Fallout 4's main quest once. (I only really beat Skyrim's main quest because I actually like it lol).
 

MirageDwarf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
996
Was Elder Scrolls Online launch this bad?

I think Bethesda has nothing else to do, metaphorically speaking because all of their next games are so far away anyway, they will keep working on it. Even though Fallout 76 bombs compared to previous games in the series, now it is in their interest to use Fallout 76 as huge beta project because same tech will be used in future games. Sucks for the people who paid full price and hate it. No problem for people who are still enjoying it. I'm sure they see it as worth full price.
 
Last edited:

Landford

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,678
Its been a week. So weird not hearing Bethesda say anything about the game. You guys think that with the heavy discounts and stuff, its being left to die?
 

TheYanger

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,139
Was Elder Scrolls Online launch this bad?

I think Bethesda has nothing else to do, metaphorically speaking because all of their next games are so far away anyway, they will keep working on it. Even though Fallout 76 bombs compared to previous games in the series, now it is in their interest to use Fallout 76 as huge beta project because same tech will be used in future games. Sucks for the people who paid full price and hate it. No problem for people who are still enjoying it. I'm sure they see it as worth full price.
TESO had design issues, but the game itself at least worked. And it wasn't such a departure from some boring standard MMO stuff that the game was unplayable. It wasn't an elder scrolls style game, but it was a game. It was more an issue of 'this isn't the game our fanbase wants'

Don't get me wrong, it had bugs, but it wasn't literally broken for the most part.
 

Sei

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,708
LA
Literally can't kill the boss, because other people are healing it with their shots (damage is bugged).

 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
Somehow this video popped up in my related video feeds. I almost didn't watch this review but I'm glad I did. This might be the best reviewer I've seen pop up on youtube in a long time. Seems like a satire review with some nuggets of truth dropped in and it's fantastic.



Thought it was pretty funny. There is a red dead redemption 2 "review" up too.


This is the best review i've seen. Cracking up lol
 

TheZodiacAge

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,068
The "Girlfriend Review" is amazing.

The song at the end and knowing how garbage ES6 will be too just tops it totally.....60 dollars in the garbaaaage hahahaha
 

Derrick01

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,289
I know that this post was sarcasm, but that doesn't change the fact that the last part is indeed very true and a huge argument for many people.

Sadly that's all some people need and it's why I think co-op is worse for games than regular multiplayer. People will lower their standards so much for co-op that you can pretty much do anything...or do nothing like in this game's case and that's still good enough for people. Game design doesn't matter when you can get a few laughs with friends and it's a dangerous road to travel. Also co-op affects single player whereas regular MP is its own mode. You turn this piece of shit into a single player game and it's not getting any better. This disaster only exists because they thought they could get away with putting the least amount of effort into a game because most wouldn't see or care about the issues because "it's fun with friends".
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
Games aren't about story, solid working experience, tight controls, deep quest design, consistent lore to a franchise, memorable npcs, rewarding competitive pvp, or technology pushing graphics. It's about fun with friends. Nothing tops fun with friends. Nothing.
"We used to be able to forgive these games for being completely broken because it offered sub par combat, rpg mechanics, and npc quests!"
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
14,983
Its been a week. So weird not hearing Bethesda say anything about the game. You guys think that with the heavy discounts and stuff, its being left to die?

Thanksgiving weekend, they probably will be having a fun day at work tomorrow.

TESO had design issues, but the game itself at least worked. And it wasn't such a departure from some boring standard MMO stuff that the game was unplayable. It wasn't an elder scrolls style game, but it was a game. It was more an issue of 'this isn't the game our fanbase wants'

Don't get me wrong, it had bugs, but it wasn't literally broken for the most part.

A major problem with ESO was that people just didn't want to subscribe to it. And when it launched, almost every other MMO at the time was transitioning to the F2P model
 

Valdega

Banned
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
This disaster only exists because they thought they could get away with putting the least amount of effort into a game because most wouldn't see or care about the issues because "it's fun with friends".

Except it can be fun solo too. If you enjoyed the exploration, scavenging and combat of FO4, FO76 offers more of it. People expecting this to be New Vegas 2 will be disappointed but Bethesda is never going to make a NV2 or really anything that qualifies as a good RPG. Why this still shocks or disappoints people is strange because it's been the case for almost 20 years.
 

Darkstorne

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,813
England
A major problem with ESO was that people just didn't want to subscribe to it. And when it launched, almost every other MMO at the time was transitioning to the F2P model
No one wanted to subscribe because it was a pretty bad game at launch. It's doing great today. Remember when they first revealed the game? It had a cartoon art direction, comically sized body proportions, and they were confused when people kept asking if you could play in first person. It was a linear progression game that split the races of Tamriel neatly into a three v three faction storyline, despite that not making any sense within the established world.

Launch day ESO is the perfect example of what happens when you give an established IP to two devs from another brand, and tell them they can use it to make a pseudo sequel in all but name to their existing MMO (Dark Age of Camelot).

Today's ESO also happens to be a fantastic example of how much a game can be improved when you start thinking about what it's fans might want from it, and what might fit the IP.

So while 76 might well be massively improved in the future like ESO is now, it's still baffling that they've been through an almost identical process before (launching an online version of a single player RPG series and missing what fans love about it) and appear not to have learned from those mistakes at all.