Jump to content

MechanicalLemon

Members
  • Posts

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MechanicalLemon

  1. A magazine called Atomic has given Skyrim 95%, you can find scans if you search around, the game is mostly praised apart from a few AI issues.

     

    I love how they listed "id software" as Skyrim's developer. Whoops. Also interesting is that they liken Skyrim to Fallout New Vegas. There are some flaws, but the game's sheer scope overshadows it.

     

    The perk system is much better than the leveling system before. No more watching how I level in order to get that x5 modifier.

  2. Anyway, I'm trying to decide if I'll play an Argonian or a Nord. Anyone else always feel inclined to pick their race based on setting in ES games? I'm trying to break the habit.

     

    I'm considering going Nord instead of my usual Dunmer. Gotta represent the local population.

  3. Yes, it's a pretty bad intro, they went with the cinematic flavor but Bethesda just isn't experience or good enough with that. Writing also lacks subtlety although to be honest, I do think it's a step up from Oblivion and Fallout 3 from the little I've heard of it. Combat is the same as Oblivion.

     

    ..overall, none of that is likely to hamper my enjoyment of the game since I was expecting it and since those are not the elements that I enjoy in the Elder Scrolls series. That said, I'll be very disappointed if they don't nail exploration, atmosphere and lore this time and if the mechanics are as weak as in Oblivion.

     

    Yeah, I noticed that voice-acting was pretty meh all around, although it's still too early to tell. Melee combat looked floaty still, which is a shame. Animations look a little wonky too.

     

    The caves, the river, and that mist looked quite nice, however.

  4. The closest parallel I can think of is Glen Cook's The Black Company. Chances are if you enjoy that, you'll like Malazan.

    Doesn't the Gardens of the Moon have a glenn cook quote to promote it? (And the Instrumentality of the Night books have Erikson promoting those?)

     

    I think Erikson would have a lot more followers if he nailed down the narrative to a slightly more linear structure IN THE BOOKS (I don't mind the books being all over in chronology, but actually IN the books I think it needs to be less... schitzophrenic). And maybe explained more about the world.

     

    I think so, but I can't recall where I saw it. I do know that Erikson dedicated Toll the Hounds to Glen Cook. The Bridgeburners is a direct homage to the Black Company.

  5. I wanted to hold out and wait for the GOTY edition but all that new footage is seriously tempting me.

     

    This was asked and I think it was Todd who confirmed no in depth companion story arcs :(

     

    I wish. I guess this just isn't Bethesda's thing. FO3 didn't have any either. You would think after watching Obsidian pull it off they would be interested in trying to give some personality to people that follow you around.

     

    Actually Fallout 3 had it, while much less than Fallout: New Vegas. The reviews were less than stellar, since Bethesda never had good character writing in any of their games (in Morrowind everyone was basically walking Wikipedia, and Morrowind has the best writing of the series). Better for them to stick to their guns and do environmental storytelling, tons of lore, in-depth dungeons and exploration, etc., they simply do a different type of RPGs.

     

    Aww, that's too bad. Well, you can't have everything, I guess. Having in-depth companions would flesh out the world but I can certainly understand Beth's position of not going that route.

  6. BTW, how is Gardens of the Moon ? I bought it off the sale rack a while back but have never read it. I have a hard time getting into fantasy unless Tolkien or Martin wrote it.

     

    Malazan is a tricky series in that people inevitably love or hate it. Erikson doesn't tell his story in a straightforward, chronological way. For frame of reference:

     

    lotrasoiafmbotf.jpg

     

    Combined with a huge cast of characters and a shockingly in-depth world...it can get confusing. I remember having a lot of trouble in the first few books. It gets easier once you become familiar with the world and its terminology.

     

    It's similar to GRRM's ASoIaF in that it nails a dark, gritty atmosphere but whereas Martin has a more low-fantasy world, Malazan is full of magic and gods who like to intervene (resurrection, making pawns, etc). Also, Malazan has a lot of characters but at the expense of depth, unfortunately. You probably won't find well-written characters on the level of ASoIaF. So if you prefer fantasy that doesn't rely on magic, stay away from these books. :blush:

     

    The closest parallel I can think of is Glen Cook's The Black Company. Chances are if you enjoy that, you'll like Malazan.

×
×
  • Create New...