Big Hands I Know You’re The One: TESO’s 1st Person Cam

By Alec Meer on March 19th, 2013 at 3:00 pm.

Is this an official screenshot? It's impossible to tell

We’ve got acres of Elder Scrolls Online coverage due to hit you in the face (n.b. this is an analogy for ‘reading words on a screen’ – RPS solemnly pledges not to hit any of its readers in the face) later today and tomorrow, as Nathan’s just got back from playing it, but lest it be drowned out by wordsplosion, it’s worth stating THE BIG LOUD NOISY HEADLINE on its own too. Which is that Bethesda have reinstated an Elder Scrolls-traditional first-person mode into their MMO. The internet got pretty internetty when the game was initially revealed to be lacking this TES mainstay, but now it’s back in there, visible hands and all.

Exactly what that does to a game based around a very different sort of roleplaying to its singleplayer predecessors is something we’ll find out in time, I suppose, although Nathan will be along very soon to share some hands-on thoughts. Not hands-on-with-hands, alas, as the new mode has so far only been shown in videos rather than being made available to the journos who recently played the game, but hell, it’s in there, we’ll get to see our weapons sticking out from the bottom of our screens, and that sounds jolly good. Let’s give it a big hand.

, .

95 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
    • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

      It’s like the Blind Leading the Naked, nearly but not quite, anyway………………….

  1. NathaI3 says:

    Well that’s handy.

    • povu says:

      It feels a bit ham-fisted.

      • thegooseking says:

        *facepalm*

        • I want to stab you to death and play around with your blood. says:

          *lizardbreastpalm*

      • Mbaya says:

        At least they didn’t palm the work off to another studio.

      • Muzman says:

        Carpl-ease everyone I suppose. I manual always have people who can’t dig it.

      • JabbleWok says:

        I’m not normally an MMOer, but as a longtime elder scroller I reckon TESO has the best chance of getting me to try some mano-a-mano against another (virtual) human, hands down.

      • chewbaccasdad says:

        You gotta hand it to them, they listened to the fans.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      You’re the first person to say that

    • Rao Dao Zao says:

      The game will look so much more handsome from the first-person perspective.

  2. Premium User Badge

    Cinek says:

    So… is it yet another cheap expensive clone of WoW with barely any ambition to be anything better (aka. getting rid of this ridiculous DD-Tank-Healer trio?!)

    • akaleus says:

      I actually prefer this ridiculous trio.

    • elfbarf says:

      While I’m all for originality in MMOs (I’m not very interested in TESO), I don’t see why so many people still want to get rid of the “holy trinity”. Guild Wars 2 did it and it resulted in the game having terrible PvE combat (outside of heavily scripted events). Sure, you may be able to get rid of dedicated healers (by giving everyone weaker healing), but the removal of dedicated tanks is a terrible idea.

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        Somehow 99% of games without “holy trio” have an excellent PvE gameplay, if you dare to look outside of the MMO genre.

        • elfbarf says:

          Which games are you referring to?

          • Premium User Badge

            Cinek says:

            You know – RPGs? Like the… TES series for a random example. These that don’t try to be an MMO in a WoW sense. But just try to be an excellent games.

            Dozens tried to make a clone of WoW with “holy trinity” – all of them failed. Even as big companies as EA. I don’t see how “holy trinity” makes anything good any more. So far every single game going this path failed badly – Guild Wars 2 you gave here as an example is actually one of very few MMOs that met with some real success.

            The most ridiculous MMOs for me are with totally idiotic AI which bangs just a single player all the time while everyone around heal him or shoot said AI target (perfect example of “holy trinity vs AI”). It’s just… as bad as it gets. If anyone release an FPS shooter where AI has this level of… sophistication everyone would bash all over it and it’d probably be announced as the worst FPS of the year. Meanwhile in MMOs it’s somehow perfectly fine and even promoted by people like you. Pathetic.

          • elfbarf says:

            The TES series is a single-player, solo RPG series. You aren’t fighting with other people (minus a companion, though the game is balanced to be playable without them), so of course you wouldn’t have dedicated tanks/healers.

            As I said in my original comment, GW2 tried to remove the holy trinity, but it didn’t work at all. PvE combat in GW2 consists of kiting things around, hoping that several things don’t decide to nuke you at the same time. It’s a poorly designed, poorly balanced clusterfuck.

          • Hoaxfish says:

            Does football have a holy trinity?

          • Brun says:

            1) WoW didn’t invent the holy trinity.

            2) The level of encounter sophistication has dramatically increased since the early days. There’s usually a lot more going on than the boss attacking one player while he’s healed. The boss may attack only the tank directly, but it may throw out area effect attacks that can kill the healers and DPS (that’s a very simplified example).

          • Premium User Badge

            Arathain says:

            Ah! It’s that point where I often turn up and bang on tediously about City of Heroes. Don’t think you can get away from it just because the game is no more.

            CoH managed fine without the trinity. You could play it that way, and it worked fine, but there were lots of viable ways to build a team. For WoW, and most of the games that imitate it, heals are proportionally much stronger and more important than buffs/debuffs and controls. In CoH buffs and debuffs are very powerful and controls tend to be of much longer duration than WoW and co. allow. This means an active support player who knows their abilities can shut down a lot of incoming damage, making healing unnecessary at best and a handy backup when things start to slip away from you.

            Combine this with a dynamic approach to combat with numerous, powerful enemies, and abilities are cone AoEs, placed AoEs, mob centered, player centered or whatever and a good player is constantly re positioning and assessing needs and risks.

            I prefer this to the trinity by a long shot. It’s much easier to build a team. There’s a more of a motivation to try and make some crazy team composition work. Pick up groups could actually be a lot of fun as you all figured out how to fit together into a mad superpowered steamroller. Personally, I find the whole ‘put the tank through tremendous suffering then magically make his terrible wounds go away so it can happen all over again’ very gamey and a little tedious.

        • Premium User Badge

          darkChozo says:

          Hmm, is that really true, though? I mean, healers are a bit optional, but most games with multiple person PvE have some concept of tank vs. damage, even if it’s a big melee guy vs. fast ranged guy kind of thing.

          EDIT: I suppose the exception would be cases where everyone’s identical and versatile, which I guess works. That usually trades out the “you’re a tank, you’re a DPS” dynamic with “you picked up a rocket launcher, congrats, you’re now DPS” kind of thing, though, and I’m not sure how well it’d work in an MMO.

        • akaleus says:

          I suppose you’re talking about games with automatic health regen once out of combat or in cover? I like this mechanic as well. But when I play an MMO that’s meant to be played with other people, I prefer having a dedicated role ie Healer, Tank, DD. Definitely makes me feel like I’m more of a useful and integral part of a group.

          I got bored with playing in groups in GW2 because it never felt like we were really working together as team. More just dodging and DDing as fast as possible. Other players always felt like NPCs to me because they didn’t really have a purpose to differentiate themselves from the other players. Sure, they had different skills etc, but in the end they were just doing the exact same thing as me. DDing.

          • TillEulenspiegel says:

            Regenerating health, really, that’s all you can think of?

            Try 90% of tabletop RPGs with combat, 90% of CRPGs made before MMOs. There’s a huge vast, vastly huge world out there of game mechanics that aren’t the one thing that videogames are beating to death at the moment.

          • Brun says:

            D&D had the same basic role structure – it was more loosely defined, but you typically needed a fighter and a cleric in your party if you wanted to take on extremely tough enemies.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Give D&D a bit more credit than that. Until 4th ed. a rogue and mage were just as important. Hell, in 3.5 the need for a fighter is inversely proportional to a character’s level, and the opposite with a mage. DDO didn’t simplify the classes down to fighter, dps, healer and the game is better and more unique for it.

          • Premium User Badge

            darkChozo says:

            The original D&D classes, in fact, were fighter, mage, cleric (not by those names but whatever). Sound familiar?

            Though past that, the archetypal D&D party is fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue (ie. tank, damage, healing, skill checks). At least until 4e, then I dunno what.

          • Brun says:

            Sure, when I say fighter I mean at the archetypal level, his actual class could be something else that conforms to the fighter archetype. Same with a Cleric – could be a druid, for example.

      • aliksy says:

        The fuck are you talking about? GW2’s PvE combat is fine. Far more fun and exciting than the traditional slog MMO.

        • Brun says:

          It was pretty boring for me, it was more or less exactly how he described – sit around spamming my abilities on cooldown and dodging.

        • Nick says:

          I disagree entirely, its exactly the same as traditional mmo combat except with real time dodge rolls and much less in the way of tactical skill use/management of resources. You can autoattack your way through 99% of the combat quite easily.

          • aliksy says:

            Then what do you want from it? I mean, you’re basically saying “All I’m doing is using my skills and dodging! Boring!”

            I would’ve liked if they kept the difficulty what it was during beta-weekend-1, but they softened it up a lot. Too many people whining about it being hard and not feeling “powerful” enough, I suspect.

            I’d like more games that play like Dark Souls, I think. No dozens of skills to unlock, just trade-offs to make, and a bigger player-skill factor. Less of the “stand there and trade blows” that you see in traditional MMOs.

            But subscription MMOs need to capture as large an audience as possible, so they have every motivation to make it so even grandma with dead-sloth reflexes can do well.

          • Brun says:

            I felt like I didn’t have to make any trade-offs in GW2. On my Dagger Necromancer I just used every damage-dealing ability I had whenever it came off cooldown. There was no penalty to doing this as there was little internal synergy amongst the abilities I had. Beyond that it was just trying to dodge everything and hoping I didn’t get one-shot by something.

          • aliksy says:

            I felt like I didn’t have to make any trade-offs in GW2. On my Dagger Necromancer I just used every damage-dealing ability I had whenever it came off cooldown. There was no penalty to doing this as there was little internal synergy amongst the abilities I had. Beyond that it was just trying to dodge everything and hoping I didn’t get one-shot by something.

            Sounds like a problem with the specific skills that dagger necromancers have (never played one), rather than a problem with the larger structure I’m concerned with. My main concern is that any class should be viable on its own, and be able to fulfill multiple roles. GW2 never has “We need another healer”. Just “We need another player”. And that’s great.

            But honestly I’ve lost track of what I’m arguing about, and I’ve descended into a general wharrgarbl against MMOs and class/level systems. wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl.

          • Brun says:

            Dagger Necros were basically a melee caster class, which I found interesting so I wanted to try it. I also thought that combining the rapid strikes of the dagger attacks with the Necromancer’s self-healing tree would make for a pretty powerful build. Those effects were mostly passive though, and I ended up not even using pets (a hallmark of Necromancers) because they were so weak.

          • Nick says:

            No, what I’m saying is I’m using auto attack and dodging. Don’t *need* to use the other skills, do more damage without them in fact and have no use for their utility in most situations, PvE wise.

            And GW1 didn’t require the holy trinity either, it had a dedicated healer class, yeah, but so what? It had reasons to use skills and (gasp) variety in skill choice. Yeah there were a lot of useless skills, but there are a lot in GW2 as well and it has even less to choose from to start with.

      • ScatheZombie says:

        I think it’s more than people want to get rid of the idea of the holy trinity, rather than the actual mechanics of the system itself – or that they simply don’t understand the system. Even in Guild Wars 2, that supposedly gets rid of the holy trinity, it still exists – because that’s the nature of MMO combat mechanics, there is merely a lack of pure specialization. All mechanics break down into dealing damage, mitigating damage, healing damage taken, buffs, debuffs, and control. The “trinity” refers to the top 3 rolls, which are always necessary to a combat encounter, of mitigating (tank), dealing (damage), and healing damage (healer). But there’s also the supplemental roles of buffing, debuffing and control. I think the difference between a trinity system that people dislike and one that they enjoy is the availability and emphasis these support roles have.

        Guild Wars 2, for example, still has the trinity for most group encounters *but* almost everyone is filling multiple rolls and filling the secondary support roles of buffing, debuffing, and control. The only problem with that lack of specialization, is that *everyone* in the group needs to be good at their class and good at filling all of their roles. Normally, the trinity allows for a strong tank and strong healer to overcome the shortcomings of the rest of the group. Without specialization, i.e. GW2, you can longer overcome the rest of the group’s poor play because each person is responsible for 1/5th of the necessary tanking, damage, healing, buffing, debuffing, and control. It also means playing your character *effectively* and *optimally* is super-complicated. Versus, in a system such as WoW, to be effective as a damage dealer, you stay out of the bad stuff and press a handful of buttons in repetition. You don’t need to worry about buffs, debuffs, crowd control, healing, dodging, and going through your rotation all at the same time (outside of specific raid encounters). So, I think GW2 problem was that it raised the barrier for being an “effective” player and made it more difficult to group with random people, because the encounters require more coordination and have a larger reliance on everyone in the group pulling their weight. At least that’s been my experience.

        So, it isn’t actually the “trinity” system that people don’t like. It’s that they prefer less specialization (Guild Wars 2) or more emphasis on support roles (City of Heroes). But the trinity is still there. And it exists in almost every mutli-player RPG, from MMOs to board games to table tops.

        • Brun says:

          Normally, the trinity allows for a strong tank and strong healer to overcome the shortcomings of the rest of the group.

          That’s entirely dependent on the encounter in question. There are plenty of designs in which strong DPS can account for the shortcomings of the tanks and healers. Likewise, on an encounter with something like an enrage timer (hard or soft), your tanks and healers cannot save you from incompetent DPS.

          A better statement would be that normally the trinity allows one or more of the existing roles to make up for deficiencies among the others.

    • Mordsung says:

      Plenty of us were actually quite turned off by the MMOs that got rid of the trinity.

      I am a tank. I think like a tank. I enjoy tanking. There’s no reason for me to play an MMO where I cannot tank.

      I didn’t even hit level cap in GW2 due to the lack of structure.

      • InternetBatman says:

        The problem isn’t that the trinity exists. It’s that the trinity is too small. When you change rogue (a skill-based character with situational combat utility) into dps, you lose a lot of gameplay. When you change mage (a powerful but limited character whose tactics depend on the shape of the battlefied) you lose a lot too. That doesn’t mean the roles are outmoded, just incomplete.

        • Mordsung says:

          But you’re talking about entirely subjective game mechanics as though there is an objective “right way” to do things.

          A 3 role system is no more or less right or wrong than a 5 role system. Tank, healer, damage isn’t worse than, say, tank, healer, damage, controller. In one system an entire class does control, in the other you would split control abilities up between the damage users.

          It doesn’t make it better, harder, or really anything objective to have X number of roles vs Y number of roles.

          It entirely comes down to preference.

          • Brun says:

            If you’re going to have defined roles, you need to design your encounters to accommodate all of them. Originally, if you remember, WoW had a lot more variety than it does now in terms of roles (in the very early days, things were less clear-cut and certain class designs led people to believe that buffers and hybrid builds could be viable). But the earliest encounter designs (basically all of the Vanilla raids) left little room for classes that did anything besides tank, heal or DPS. If everything in an encounter is immune to a certain kind of damage, there was no point in bringing a class that did that kind of damage.

            The simplistic encounter design really killed the variety of classes over the course of Vanilla. Originally there were some buffbot classes (Shaman and Paladin) but their contribution was limited and in many cases it was more efficient to bring a single token buffbot and then stack more effective DPS and healers instead of bringing some of the more exotic classes or specializations. When the first expansion hit and raids were downsized the problem was exacerbated and the support classes were largely reworked to fit into the holy trinity.

          • Mordsung says:

            It’s still preference though.

            I loved Vanilla WoW PvE, I stopped raiding in TBC and pretty much fell out of love with the game at that point. I still played here and there, but nothing compared to my days as a 40 man raid tank.

          • Arglebargle says:

            While every game is a bundle of abstractions, I find the very idea of ‘the tank’ to be off putting. I can think of no real world example of a slow, heavily armored foe, incapable of doing any significant damage, yet who somehow commands your total attention. If it’s not dangerous, why are you worried about it?

            The whole trinity thing is a game developer’s shortcut.

          • Brun says:

            If encounter AI were realistic (i.e., it always went after the healers and soft targets first) then the encounters would be impossible. How else would you address that problem? Have everyone kite things instead? A boss running fruitlessly after an enemy he could never catch is just as ridiculous as having a single tank hold threat, when viewed through the same lens.

      • aliksy says:

        Conversely, I hate tanking. I hate “aggro management”, especially when it’s artificial and obvious.

        If the game won’t work with whatever group of setups my friends and I want to play, I’m not interested. Even if we all want to play rogues.

        • Brun says:

          That’s like saying “I don’t like American football because I can’t win with a team consisting only of Wide Receivers.”

          • aliksy says:

            Worked fine in GW2. You could do a party of all mages in Dragon Age. Probably do similar in those other old Bioware games. You can make classes self-sufficient. You can also do away with classes altogether if you’re feeling ambitious.

          • Brun says:

            You *could* run a party of 5 mages in Dragon Age, but was that the most efficient party composition? (Maybe, but only because Arcane Warrior existed and was technically a mage, but could act as an excellent tank). A general rule for MMOs is that if there is a most efficient way of doing something, that is the way it will be done, and any other way of doing that same thing will be avoided. Dedicated MMO players like to optimize and they will find the optimal way of doing something, and this will become the “right” way.

            I played a Balance Druid in Vanilla WoW, and given that my damage output was weaker than pretty much everything else at the time I would never be chosen for PvE raids in a serious context (I had groups that would take me because we were friends and having 1 Balance Druid wasn’t going to sink their group). This exclusion was not enforced by the game’s mechanics – groups with Balance Druids could down bosses, but it made things easier to take a Mage or a Warlock in their place, and thus the exclusion was a cultural one.

          • aliksy says:

            That endless drive for optimization in MMOs makes me think I might hate MMOs. Or maybe just MMO culture.

            I mean, right now I’m amusing myself in Dark Souls by playing without a shield. Just to see if I can do it. (So far: yes). I wonder what an MMO for me would be like?

            I also played theme decks in magic the gathering even when they weren’t super effective.

          • Brun says:

            You’re going to find that drive for optimization in pretty much every MMO. GW2’s systems made it unnecessary to optimize stringently and that left a lot of people who liked that part of MMOs feeling like the game was shallow. So yes, if you’re not a fan of that strict optimization, most MMOs won’t be to your liking.

          • aepervius says:

            A party of mages in dragon age was not about optimisation, it was about fun and challenge.

            This is the things which jare me the msot in all MMO fight : people wanting to optimize levelling/crafting/raiding/whatever.

            They are all getting ride of the fun for gigantic spreadsheet. And the one making those MMO deliver what’s requested.

            If I want to have fun, then i forget MMO.

          • Arglebargle says:

            American football has collison detection…..

          • MacTheGeek says:

            … and clipping is strictly prohibited.

          • Deadly Sinner says:

            I think you might just hate MMORPGs, or at least their current form. The difference between your example of a game like Dark Souls and a game like WOW is that skill actually makes a difference in the former. In Dark Souls, you can go into a fight naked with just your fists and come out on top (though it would be very difficult.) In WOW, you’re essentially trading numbers and finding the most efficient way of doing so.

            Unfortunately, there’s no Dark Souls like MMO that I know of, but there are MMOs that are vastly different from WOW. Planetside 2 would be the big one.

    • Jenks says:

      It’s always weird to me as an EQ player seeing tank, healer, and DD referred to as the holy trinity. That’s every class in whatever game you’re playing. In EQ, holy trinity was coined for the tank, cleric, and enchanter (an almost pure crowd control class). The holy trinity was a derisive term born out of the envy of the 8 or so classes that were not part of the trinity, and had to fight to fill the second half of EQ’s 6 man groups. Starting around WoW, PVE in the MMO genre has become infinitely easier and a pure crowd control class has become unnecessary, and “trinity” has become a completely different criticism.

      • Nick says:

        It was tank slower cleric usually. Although before slows were “capped” it was basically shaman in the slower position. But then I duoed through most of Kunark as a druid with a monk, pre velios, so it wasn’t exactly required despite conventional wisdom. So many zones no one went to that were so much better than the likes of Karnors.

  3. elfbarf says:

    It’ll be offered, but I’m sure that they’re still intend for you to play in third-person. From what I’ve seen/read, there will be a lot of fire to not stand in (an MMO staple) and other various situations where a third-person view would be far more useful.

  4. spacevagrant says:

    I have lost all interest in this game. Richard Cobbett just did a write up over at eurogamer.net that pretty much verified that it will be the same old crap in a Elder Scrolls wrapper.

  5. addam666 says:

    WARHANDS?

  6. Premium User Badge

    Lars Westergren says:

    > Whether that serves to make a game based around a very different sort of roleplaying to its singleplayer predecessors is something we’ll find out in time, I suppose

    I think The Old Republic has shown that the transition from a single player focus to MMO is problematic at best. The exploration and sandbox focused gameplay of the Elder Scroll games might be a bit more amenable to be translated to online than the more narratively focused franchises of BioWare. I still think they are going to face a lot of scepticism from their fans though.

    • Arglebargle says:

      They are already having that problem. They are using the Elder Scrolls world as a draw, but having done that, they have to deal with the expectations of the Elder Scrolls fans. Essentially the game is Dark Age of Camelot 2, and a lot of things were shoehorned into shape by their Procrustean game design. Some of these decisions are already raising ire.

  7. Premium User Badge

    amateurviking says:

    I was just thinking about hands in TES games the other day. It occurs to me that given the position of the hands in Skyrim et al, the POV must be in your avatar’s chest? I guess that’s so you can always see what you have equipped.

    I wonder if anyone has modded this…brb.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      I always thought it’s an eye on the neck.
      You know – the Dragonborn. That’s why he is so awesome – he has an eye on the neck.
      That also explains why everything shakes each time he shouts.

  8. akaleus says:

    Haha love the edit to the story photo.

  9. Premium User Badge

    Crimsoneer says:

    Guys, this glorious idea we had is turning into a massive car crash! What can we do to fix it?

    Hey boss, how about we add a first person cam? Then at least it might, you know, look vaguely like Skyrim?

    DO IT! DO ANYTHING!

  10. Premium User Badge

    Lambchops says:

    I love me a good music reference in a tag line I do.

    • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

      The Pre-order’s anthem methinks!!

      …Well, you can all just kiss off into the air
      Behind my back, I can see them stare
      They’ll hurt me bad, but I won’t mind
      They’ll hurt me bad, they do it all the time (yeah, yeah!)
      Yeah, they do it all the time (yeah, yeah!)
      They do it all the time (do it all the time!)
      They do it all the time (do it all the time!)
      They do it all the time, do it all the time

      ‘Kiss Off’ by the VF’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gproa6vzgws

      • Ruffian says:

        The Femmes! Such a great little band. The break in Kiss Off is pretty freakin genius. Best version of the ole countdown thing, anywhere, ever. Really that whole album is amazing though. Definitely near the top of my “desert island” albums list.
        Also if you’re into the Femmes and you’ve not heard them, totally check out Born Ruffians – not exactly the same type of music, ( a little more “indie” than surf) but they certainly remind me of the VF alot at times.

        • Nick says:

          I think the various bass breaks in Add it up are my favourites. And the manic guitar solo.

  11. naetharu says:

    Humm well it is good news that the option of first-person is back in the game. I have doubts that it will be all that useful however – given that MMO’s tend to be focused around tactical play.

    However, let us be honest here. The actual gameplay (in the sense of offering a challanging and balanced experience) is utterly rubbish in the various Elder Scrolls games. The games are awesome in spite of their crappy gameplay. The combat is dull and clunky, the magic is over-powered and many of the skills are pointless or even harmful (i.e Alchemy levelling in TES 4).

    My point being, I would not want an MMO (where game balance matters) with standard TES game mechanics. That would be a total nightmare. It would be fun as a Co-Op adventure but not an MMO. So I have very little concern that they are sticking to the basic MMO forumla here. What will matter here is how well they do it. If the skills are interesting, the world and lore well implemented and the gameplay tight then it could be fantastic. Or it could be just another failed WoW clone. But right now it is way too early to say one way or the other.

  12. thegooseking says:

    But what if you could talk to the hand?

  13. Premium User Badge

    RedViv says:

    Alas, the legacy of the floating arms is honoured again!

  14. Solidstate89 says:

    Alec, you’ve won my meaningless and arbitrary “Favorite Editor of the Day” award for making that song reference.

  15. ucfalumknight says:

    I just wanted to say thanks for the Violent Femmes reference.

    • aliksy says:

      I felt smart for getting the reference.

    • Banana_Republic says:

      I don’t really care much about TESO, but the Violent Femmes vid was worth the visit..

    • Nick says:

      Why, do you like american music?

      • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

        It comes in bigger portions, of course!

        • Nick says:

          the only correct responses are: I like all kinds of music or I like american music.

          Sorry, you have failed the violent femmes reference test.

          =(

    • Ostymandias says:

      let me go oooooooon
      like a blister in the suuuuun

  16. Panda Powered says:

    Many free-roaming hand-adventures will be had.

  17. Joseph says:

    second best videogame related violent femmes reference in a while.

  18. terry says:

    Looking forward to it going F2P in less than a year.

  19. Strangerator says:

    Why is it that when I see a stuffed animal cat pretending to run for office I still laugh despite my age?

  20. PopeRatzo says:

    Will someone please tell me how “TES” became the acronym for Elder Scrolls without anyone notifying me?

    I think I should have been kept in the loop on this decision. And in what language do we use the initials for articles in our acronyms? I don’t think the acronym for The National Atmospheric and Space Administration is TNASA.

    Wait a minute, is this one of those UK things like bangers and mash?

  21. Lev Astov says:

    One critical shortcoming fixed. It’s almost a TES game. Now to fix those horrendously ugly non-human character faces, as shown in the official screenshot up top.

  22. Nice Save says:

    I think everyone has missed the big story here and that is the fact that the picture at the top of this article contains a pair of winged testicles in the top left.