Creston wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 13:36:ItBurn wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 09:38:
That's one thing I hate about the recent elder scrolls. The fact that you can be master of all guilds and be able to do all the quests. I think it's dumb and it makes the entire leveling up systems feel useless. I want to be refused some quests because of how I built my character. Let me start a new game where I'll make different choices and build my character a different way and experience a different game. Nowadays, every game is the same, there's no real reason to restart a new one and I HATE it. Vampire the masquerade Bloodlines did it right.
I will never understand this complaint. Flat out locking people out of parts of the content because they "made the wrong choice" is the most god-awful game design possible. It virtually guarantees that some people will just shut your game off, mutter "FUCK YOU!" to the dev, and never again buy something from them.
Why can't you just stop yourself from playing those quests? If I play a mage character in Skyrim, I do the College of Magic quests, and usually the Thieves Guild quests, and that's it. I don't join the Companions as a mage.
Similarly if I play a warrior type, I don't go joining the College of Magic. (other than getting access to it so I can get access to the vendor who sells Daedric Hearts.)
I rarely even play the main quests beyond a certain point. It's so easy to have different experiences in Skyrim (or other games) by just sticking to a build and a style yourself.
You seem incapable of just stopping yourself from gobbling up every available quest, then bitching that you got too fat. How about you actually just start a different game, build a character differently, and then play a different part of the game?
I know, I know, logic.
Beamer wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 09:51:ItBurn wrote on Jun 16, 2016, 09:38:Quboid wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 22:05:Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 17:33:
I have fewer concerns about this than having people treat me like I just crawled out of a sewer when I'm the head of the Fighter's Guild, Mages Guild, and saved the entire damn city.
That's a worse example of the disconnect I mean.
"I am Sir Quboid, Champion of the Fighter's Guild, Master Thief, Silent Assassin, Learned Mage, and I am The Dragonborn. I have fought man and beast the likes of which you have never seen from Solitude to Riften. Move aside, guard!"
"No lollygagging."
"Hey fu ... how'd you like an arrow in the knee?!"
That's one thing I hate about the recent elder scrolls. The fact that you can be master of all guilds and be able to do all the quests. I think it's dumb and it makes the entire leveling up systems feel useless. I want to be refused some quests because of how I built my character. Let me start a new game where I'll make different choices and build my character a different way and experience a different game. Nowadays, every game is the same, there's no real reason to restart a new one and I HATE it. Vampire the masquerade Bloodlines did it right.
Disagreed. The game takes 80-100 hours. At this point in my life that's about as much gaming as I do in a year. I want to be able to see everything.
There's 0 chance I'll ever replay an 80+ hour game again. Those days died when I stopped being a student.
Which is why it's nice that some games cater to you and some to me.
Quboid wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 22:05:Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 17:33:
I have fewer concerns about this than having people treat me like I just crawled out of a sewer when I'm the head of the Fighter's Guild, Mages Guild, and saved the entire damn city.
That's a worse example of the disconnect I mean.
"I am Sir Quboid, Champion of the Fighter's Guild, Master Thief, Silent Assassin, Learned Mage, and I am The Dragonborn. I have fought man and beast the likes of which you have never seen from Solitude to Riften. Move aside, guard!"
"No lollygagging."
"Hey fu ... how'd you like an arrow in the knee?!"
Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 15:45:Quboid wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 15:17:ItBurn wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 13:56:Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 13:49:
People seem to hate level scaling. I see both sides of the argument, and think it can be done just fine with both ways. Some areas scale, some areas don't.
But scaling is somewhat necessary. I mean, it would suck to start the Thieves Guild missions, get halfway through, then be too low a level and have to go do some Fighter's Guild to level up. I'd rather be able to plow through as I want to plow through, even if it means I end up getting great armor from bandits later in the game.
I agree. Level scaling is ok when some things scale and others don't. I disagree about the other part though. I absolutely want my progress to be hindered by my level at some points. That's what it's all about, growing stronger to be able to do things you couldn't before.
I like this sort of progression as long as I'm not being funnelled down a linear route. It's OK to be unable to continue in the Thieves Guild for a while, but it's not OK if a Fighter's Guild mission is the only way to get the XP/weapon/whatever I needed.
For me, it's more like it's ok to not be able to enter this part of the map, but don't make me stop the quest line I'm focusing on to go grind.
Oblivion had very, very little grinding. That's part of what makes SP games fun. If, in order to continue with the Thieves Guild, I had to go spend a few hours killing animals to collect 10 horns, or to be less snarky go do a bunch of other quests, I'd be annoyed. Now I'm grinding, not gaming.
Quboid wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 15:17:ItBurn wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 13:56:Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 13:49:
People seem to hate level scaling. I see both sides of the argument, and think it can be done just fine with both ways. Some areas scale, some areas don't.
But scaling is somewhat necessary. I mean, it would suck to start the Thieves Guild missions, get halfway through, then be too low a level and have to go do some Fighter's Guild to level up. I'd rather be able to plow through as I want to plow through, even if it means I end up getting great armor from bandits later in the game.
I agree. Level scaling is ok when some things scale and others don't. I disagree about the other part though. I absolutely want my progress to be hindered by my level at some points. That's what it's all about, growing stronger to be able to do things you couldn't before.
I like this sort of progression as long as I'm not being funnelled down a linear route. It's OK to be unable to continue in the Thieves Guild for a while, but it's not OK if a Fighter's Guild mission is the only way to get the XP/weapon/whatever I needed.
Beamer wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 13:49:
People seem to hate level scaling. I see both sides of the argument, and think it can be done just fine with both ways. Some areas scale, some areas don't.
But scaling is somewhat necessary. I mean, it would suck to start the Thieves Guild missions, get halfway through, then be too low a level and have to go do some Fighter's Guild to level up. I'd rather be able to plow through as I want to plow through, even if it means I end up getting great armor from bandits later in the game.
VaranDragon wrote on Jun 15, 2016, 03:18:
Remember when we could fly or levitate in an Elder Scrolls game?? Yeah, Morrowind had that shit. Also quests with real consequences and tons of cool shit that wasn't so simple or easy to find. In my opinion Morrowind is still the best ES games, and even though Oblivion and Skyrim added some functionality they also took away a whole lot more. So what If I can become a god if I want to, whats wrong with that? It's an Elder Scrolls game for fucks sake. Mortals rising to Godhood is not even that rare their Lore.
What I worry about is that Bethesda will take their dumbing down to a whole other level, in their next Elder Scrolls game, and basically make it like Fallout4. All flash, no substance, no branching quest lines, no way to fail a quest, basically turn ES into an action adventure game. That would suck major balls.
Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:30:ItBurn wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:27:wtf_man wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:20:
Maybe they will used the iD Tech 6 engine (If it renders outdoors well enough). I mean... the snap map stuff is very similar to how they build TES games... and why own a engine for just one studio?
id tech 6 engine is the opposite of an engine for an open world game. Mostly because of the character, texture and world size limitations. It could be modified to do it(maybe), but it didn't seem to have been designed for that.
What texture limitations? Megatextures is a streaming technology, the only limitation is your video card ram. The rest sounds like something you justt made up.
Creston wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:29:Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:13:Creston wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:04:
For the record, once you got power armor and plasma weapons in Fallout, you would steamroll everything in your path as well. But there it was obviously just 'great writing?'
Edit : Apologies, I thought I was replying to Scottish, not you, Beamer. The Fallout One comment was more directed at him.![]()
Hey, at least you don't find that power armor and plasma rifle in the crater of a bomb that didn't actually explode, all while asking people if they've seen your father, "a middle aged guy"!![]()
Haha, fair enough.![]()
You'll get no argument from me on Fallout 3's writing. It was abominable. I still loved the game, just because the exploration in it was so much fun, but the quests were absolutely fucking terrible. They HAVE gotten significantly better in FO4, though.
wtf_man wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 18:20:
Maybe they will used the iD Tech 6 engine (If it renders outdoors well enough). I mean... the snap map stuff is very similar to how they build TES games... and why own a engine for just one studio?
jdreyer wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 16:11:ItBurn wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 16:05:Beamer wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 15:52:
But even when it came out, Oblivion wasn't the best looking game. Far from it. But it was one of the biggest. Burnout Revenge, which came out the same time, was much prettier, but had so much less going on.
In my opinion, the forests in Oblivion were better than they are now in Skyrim. I realize that the screenshots below do a poor job of comparing both games, and that my mind may be playing tricks, but I feel that in general, the Oblivion forests that I remember were denser and the trees/grass fuller.
Oblivion
Skyrim
Just a couple of things.
1. Oblivion takes place in a lusher area, so you might expect that it'd be greener and fuller.
2. The screenshot you posted looks like the modded forest. Look at this image comparing vanilla Oblivion to modded Oblivion.
heroin wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 16:06:Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 15:58:Tachikoma wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 15:30:
stuff
were done better in the Ultima series nearly 30 years ago. I suppose the mainline Ultima games weren't first-person (except for dungeon exploration in I - V) but nearly all of the open world stuff you describe was front and center in Ultima V-VII.
This is very true. I wish Garriot were working on a single-player spiritual successor to Ultima 6 or 7. Instead, he's currently polishing the turd that is the spiritual successor to UO.
Beamer wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 15:52:
But even when it came out, Oblivion wasn't the best looking game. Far from it. But it was one of the biggest. Burnout Revenge, which came out the same time, was much prettier, but had so much less going on.
Trevellian wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 11:39:Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 11:26:
Hopefully they add coop support, having companions is okay...but adventuring with a friend would be priceless.
This is the only addition I've ever wanted in the new Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.
Not an MMO, just let me invite 3 friends and have a 4 person party. Up the difficulty ridiculously when they join, I don't care. Just let me play with them.
Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 11:28:ItBurn wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 10:49:Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 10:25:ItBurn wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 09:57:
Not just diehards and competitive deathmatchers, reviewers in general. Taken from the front page reviews on metacritic, every single one of them disliked multiplayer :
- the multiplayer feels a bit too much like it's chasing other contemporary online shooters
- the multiplayer is the worst part of the game
- DOOM is one of the best shooters of year. Shame it can't be said about the multiplayer
- disappointing multiplayer modes
- lame multiplayer
- weak multiplayer
Nice cherrypicking, I've read most of the first reviews and while they do have negative things to say about the multiplayer, the majority of them did also say it was still enjoyable. Even the ones that did most heavily criticize it weren't necessarily in favour of a straight up arena experience.
Frankly, there were a lot more interesting paths they could've taken the game's MP, and a vanilla FFA mode is one of the least interesting of those paths.
Cherry-picking? What did you want me to do? I just picked the first few reviews on their page. One of them gave the game a 100%! Regardless, I've read a lot of reviews and I haven't found a single one that said that the multi was good. The consensus is that the multi is boring and not worth it. My original point was that there's cause to be worried about the new Quake because of how id handled Doom's multi. I don't want my Quake to be boring and not worth it.
Then you didn't really read the reviews and just clasped on to the first few sentences you agreed with without going into context; again, cherry-picking.
Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 10:25:ItBurn wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 09:57:
Not just diehards and competitive deathmatchers, reviewers in general. Taken from the front page reviews on metacritic, every single one of them disliked multiplayer :
- the multiplayer feels a bit too much like it's chasing other contemporary online shooters
- the multiplayer is the worst part of the game
- DOOM is one of the best shooters of year. Shame it can't be said about the multiplayer
- disappointing multiplayer modes
- lame multiplayer
- weak multiplayer
Nice cherrypicking, I've read most of the first reviews and while they do have negative things to say about the multiplayer, the majority of them did also say it was still enjoyable. Even the ones that did most heavily criticize it weren't necessarily in favour of a straight up arena experience.
Frankly, there were a lot more interesting paths they could've taken the game's MP, and a vanilla FFA mode is one of the least interesting of those paths.
Sepharo wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 03:01:Razumen wrote on Jun 14, 2016, 02:14:ItBurn wrote on Jun 13, 2016, 17:32:NegaDeath wrote on Jun 13, 2016, 17:01:
Has everyone forgotten how down people were on New Doom and how amazing that turned out? Or how great Wolfenstein New Order was? I think they've earned at least at least a little good will to not declare it bad from a mere CG teaser.
Actually, it's Doom's single player that reviewers loved. The multiplayer was universally disliked. This new Quake is entirely multiplayer, so I think that people's concerns are valid. I think it might not be developed internally at id either from the post-show interview I saw, just like Doom's multi...
The multiplayer was not universally disliked, well, it was, but only by Quake diehards, which is like the minority of gamers these days.
Not just quake diehards but competitive deathmatchers in general.
NegaDeath wrote on Jun 13, 2016, 17:01:
Has everyone forgotten how down people were on New Doom and how amazing that turned out? Or how great Wolfenstein New Order was? I think they've earned at least at least a little good will to not declare it bad from a mere CG teaser.