Topic Been Brought up to Death

Post » Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:34 am

Fallout 3 and Skyrim are objectively bad any way.

Subjectively, you mean. Opinions != Facts.
User avatar
Noraima Vega
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:28 am

Post » Sun Sep 02, 2012 7:58 am



Subjectively, you mean. Opinions != Facts.
Having bad taste must have its benefits.
User avatar
Laurenn Doylee
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:48 am

Post » Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:47 am

Having bad taste must have its benefits.

Ah yes, coming from someone who chose the avatar he did, that carries a lot of weight.
User avatar
lydia nekongo
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Post » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:18 pm

Actually, not really, I used the examples of the NPCs in Goodsprings because everyone will immediately recognize them, as they will Ysolda.

On "deep choice", again, that's where "getting it" comes in. You SAY FO:NV has deep choices, but all *I* see are menu options that I know are either bit fields or qualified numbers (int or float) in a database somewhere. By very virtue of the fact that they're there makes them non-immersive, transparent, "hey you, if you want to throw the rock, turn to page 6, otherwise turn to page 12" moments. For me. Minimalist story telling, again, for me, is BETTER story telling from an RP perspective. I don't want the badge/reward of recognition for my actions. For me, the story is in what happens, not who recognizes it. And, furthermore, the unsaid is often a heckuva lot more interesting than miles of text and dialog options. Just look, one example, at the whole Saadia/Kematu debate.

Sorry, any way, just to clarify, I've maybe 40 hours in FO:NV on one character. And, oh, as a HUGE Wasteland fan, I desperately want to love every iteration of FO, and invariably wind up not being able to play any of them through. Closest I got was with FO3. For me, there's just way too much svckage between sparse cool moments.
So a three-page choose your own adventure is better than a fifty page one, basically? Because everything in Skyrim can be boiled down to simple ASM as well. Actually, by your logic, videogames are not for you.

And, honestly, if you mean ALL the NPC's and not just the Goodsprings residents... I don't see it. The only flat or uninteresting characters in FO:NV I've come across are in Goodsprings. If you mean you're literally make-believing that characters are having interactions with your own that they are not in Skyrim... I'd say that isn't RP so much as something you could do without ever buying the game, i.e., really poor fanfic.


Subjectively, you mean. Opinions != Facts.
Heh. Hehe. It's funny because whereas I haven't played enough FO3 to know, Skyrim IS objectively bad.
Spoiler
Before you argue, examine what you assumed about that statement. You probably think I'm talking about any number of things- What I've already been talking about, which is horrible lack of depth, or about the catering to casuals, or about any number of small gripes people have- Don't get me wrong, subjectively I really like Skyrim, but I'm running into the point where every ounce of enjoyment I can get from it, which is mostly in collecting colourful objects and making pretty(ish) faces since there's not much else to do, is bled out and it becomes, in my eyes, a worthless game; Something that, interestingly, never happened for me with Oblivion, which stayed fresh and supplied new stories, content and character builds for the first two thousand hours, then when I felt I'd tried most of the game I already had it on PC and could mod it.

No, subjectively I think it's a pretty good game. Not GOTY material, but pretty good. Objectively, it's a stripped-down near-featureless version of Oblivion, which, incidentally, is a game infamous for being shipped with loads of glitches that were never patched, yet Skyrim has what seems like ten times the glitched content- It seems I can't play for five minutes without running into some stupid glitch, many of them gamebreaking or incredibly frustrating. This is both objective fact and really bad.
User avatar
Tha King o Geekz
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:14 pm

Post » Sun Sep 02, 2012 4:00 am

Here's the thing: if you want to play 'let's pretend', then Skyrim is far superior to NV. This in no way makes it a better game.
User avatar
Javaun Thompson
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:28 am

Post » Sat Sep 01, 2012 7:51 pm

I dont know how you got that from fallout new vegas. 3 maybe, but nv was just a copy paste from 3 with new additions. I cant tell you how many hours and playthroughs I've played and made. Fallout on the other hand, while still a great game, just isnt nearly as open ended as Skyrim.

I don't understand how people like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas. I went back to Fallout 3 a few days ago just to see if it's still any fun and I could not play for more than 30 minutes. New Vegas was just so much better, and actually gave me that feeling that I was actually in the Fallout world like in Fallout and Fallout 2.
User avatar
IM NOT EASY
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:53 pm

I will agree that npcs are a bit ... lacking. But, like the main character, some things about npcs can simply be imagined or inferred. You can imagine a lot. A blank slate can be both a good and a bad thing. That isn't much help, I know. That said, some npcs, like followers and marriage options should have a bit more depth. The random vendor selling wares in a town? Not so much. (Although if that happened every once in a while, it would be fun.)

A good balance needs to be struck when it comes to npcs of the major, minor, and inconsequential varieties. Major npcs should have the most variation and background; these npcs would cover most big quest characters and many followers or marriage options. These stories would be the most complex. Minor npcs should be slightly shallower in background; quest characters, marriagable, or recruitable npcs of this type should have more depth than other minor npcs but not as much depth as major npcs. Their quest would be of medium complexity. At the inconsequential end, most of these npcs should be archetypes and flat characters; filler with a certain amount of them that have unique lines or quirks. Their quests would be simpler and most of them would be townsfolk or ordinary citizens.

(Tangent: Part of the fun with Skyrim is that the main character does not come with a personality or background. You fill in the blanks. TES games are successors to pen-and-paper games like D & D. Honestly, I have a difficult time playing rpgs with 'pre-made' main characters because it does not feel like roleplaying when the role is pre-made. This can be assuaged by customizable appearances, dialogue choices, etc., as well as good writing.)
User avatar
Claire Lynham
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:42 am

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim