Jump to content

Slowtrain

Members
  • Posts

    5265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Slowtrain

  1. Think the last game I played like that was wizardry 8. The encounters would scale to the party in pretty much any dungeon. Didn't play the game long... I think there was some scaling but I do know there were plenty of areas that were way too tough at low levels, and the earlier levels became easier at higher levels. Wiz 8 has has some scaling in that areas are rated for a range of monster levels, from a min to a max. So the Arnika road might be rated for monster ranges 3-11 while the Rapax castle might be 18-24. The game wil generate encounters for your party from a range of two or three levels either way from your party level. But once yoru party has reached and past the max encounter level for that area, you will find it pretty easy going. I thought Wiz 8 handled the level scaling pretty well.
  2. I'm really concerned about bugs with this one. I'm still looking foward to the game, but I may hold off on it until the first patch is released. I hate to do that since I want to support the devs by buying the game in the first couple days of release, but after waiting through the four patches for STALKER, I'm a little gunshy. It may be a gametime decision.
  3. lol. I should change my handle to that. Anyway, I'm not saying the game will be bad, just that I felt that trailer extraordinarily unremarkable. It showed nothing as to why I should spend my money on this particularly game and not some other game. ~NN
  4. Me, too. Which from my perspective is a total bummer. Edit: My HOPE, however, is that between all the criticism that Bethesda receieved on Oblivion and the fact the Fallout is a different IP there be enough push for Bethesda to make a game that isn't quite as "Bethesda-like" as past games. In other words, I hope they will eveolve and change rather than simply continuing to push extactly the ame vision they have for the last 5 years. I believe such an evolution could possibly happen in at least enough small ways to make me enjoy Fallout 3; I wouldn't bet any money on it however.
  5. Looks like every other FPS released in the last 10 years. About as generic an experience as I can imagine.
  6. But IWD felt nothing like BG in terms of the world and gameplay. Depsite using the same engine and art assets, it played and felt like a completely different game. SO much so that while I only played through BG most of the way once or twice to moderate amusement, I played through IWD quite a few times and really had a lot of fun. I would expect ES 5 to feel like ES 4 with some minor changes. I don't think anybody should have to expect FO3 to feel like Oblivion. In truth, it shouldn't feel at all like Oblivion, since it is a completely different, almost polar opposite gameworld.
  7. You didn't like the tank battle and the moutian exploding? I though there was pretty good visceral intensity to that section.
  8. Very true. There have already been, for some time, posts on the Fallout forums, talking about this exact methodology as a way to play the game. The thing is, if level scaling had been an unqualified success in Oblivion then one could certainly understand Bethesda including it in Fallout 3. But level scaling was such a dismal failure in Oblivion from almost all possible angles that it almost boggles the mind that they would be putting it into FO3 which is a game that has no history of level scaling. If the game franchise has no history of something that doesn't seem to work, why bother adding that thing at all? To me, such an act greatly supports people's fears that FO 3 is going to be just like Oblivion since it seems to indicate that Bethesda has no interesting in tailoring their design philosophy to a specific game but instead changes the game to meet their design philosphy. WHich of course is great, if you think their design philosphy makes for a fun game. The thing is, with Oblivion, I never get any sense that there is really any good or bad in the game. Even the Dark Brotherhood and its questline doesn't feel "evil" or "bad" or really like much of anything at all; it just feels like something else to do because its there. This is my biggest problem with Oblivion: playing the game just feels so dang pointless. Every time my pc does something, I ask myself: Why did I do that? DOes this matter? Does anybody care? Nothing has any risk; nothing has any reward; nothing has any consequence or significance, everything is leveled, there's a little red compass to point the way, skills are meaningless, leveling is pointless. Really Oblivion just seems an exercise in doing things for no reason except they are there. I've never experienced a game that left me feeling so unrewarded for my actions or decisions. Maybe FO3 will be different.
  9. Hmm. I would say off hand that I think FO did a pretty good job of portraying a world that was more shades of gray when it was time to define a moral "right" and a moral "wrong". ARcanum did as well. And The WItcher. I'm sure there are others which I am not thinking about of at the moment. I think Oblivion tried to do it, but ultimately failed because nothing you did felt like it had much meaning either for good or for bad or anything in between in the gameworld. I'm sure Fallout 3 will try as well. I think a big part of it success at achieving this will be a) how well this "karma" concept that Bethesda is implenenting works and b) how strong the consequences of good and bad actions will be. Bethesda's designers have seemed to have ongoing difficulties with this across their ES games, but perhaps they will be able to make it work this time.
  10. I think the larger issue is that the same core team has done both MW and Oblivion. Some changes occured between the 2 games, but for the most part the core design philosphy of the team seemed pretty consistent. Its reasonable to expect some change between Fallout 3 and Oblivion, but its more likely than not the same design philosophies that guided MW and Oblivion will guide Fallout 3 as well. We know, for example, that the implementation of level scaling has been changed to some degree, at least as far as enemies leveling goes, but despite all the complaints and mods that Obilivion's level scaling caused, it is still in the game. This despite the fact that Fallout 1 and 2 had no level scaling whatsoever. So, whereas level scaling might be expected in ES 5, despite the problems it caused in Oblivion, simply because ES 5 would be part of the Elder Scrolls lineage and ES games have always had some sort of level scaling, there's no real defensible reason for it be in FO 3. Other than: This is Bethesda and This is the Way We Make CRPGS. We Use Level Scaling. Period. Regardless. If that kind of boilerplate approach to crpg design carries over too much into FO 3 then it is going to make a pretty disappointing game for those of us who disliked Oblivion and Morrowind. Right now, I think it is pretty safe to say that if you enjoyed Oblivion, you are very likely to enjoy Fallout 3. But if you didn't like Oblivion, well, then who knows.
  11. I'm not really looking forward to fighting The Beast again. Despite playing through that battle at least 6 times (I've played through the opening section more than the remainder of the game), it never got any easier. This time though, Iam going to see if I can come up with some new tatics in dealing with the cunning canine. Really looking forward to Enhanced Witcher, I am. W00t!
  12. I tend to agree, although I understand where arguments to the contrary come from. You create a character, choose skills and attributes, level your pc, choose a pretty open path through the game, there's dialogues, quests. From my point of view that makes it pretty hard to call it anything but a crpg. But is it a well-designed crpg? hrm. Lemme think. No.
  13. I wouldn't say a level cap remover or extender is neccessary. I just didn't find the game interesting enough to enjoy playing once my characters stopped leveling. There's tons more experience in the gameworld than can fit beneath the cap. If you rush through or just follow the main story arc, you probably wouldn't have a problem, but if you like to explore and talk with everyone, then you'll esaily max level before you even enter Baldur's Gate. ToTSC adds another level to the cap but it also adds a ton more XP as well so it doesn't really help. But for those who find sufficient enjoyment in the game beyond building your characters, the XP cap is most likely not an issue in the first place.
  14. lol. I should have guessed. Anyway, if that is the only difference, its not a big deal to me. Right now the ehanced Witcher is my most antipated game. The only one I am really looking forward to playing actually.
  15. What was the difference between the US version and others?
  16. Well, if you can hit a raider in the eye with the hard plastic nose of a teddy bear, maybe some limbs will fly off?
  17. The BB gun in Fallout was dumb, too, (The LE version, not the regular Red Rider), but its not close to the same level of dumbity as teddy bear bullets. Again, its ignorable. but it just shows where Bethesda has choosen to set the dumbness bar. Not missing in h2h combat is so far beneath the current dumbess level that it is not even noticeable really. It's like someone spraying you with a hose while you're in the swimming pool.
  18. All of the above are far less stupid than killing a raider with flying teddy bears. Once you've seen something that dumb, none of this other stuff can even raise an eyebrow.
  19. It wasn't really hitting that was the problem though. It was closing the distance on someone carrying a mingun or a plasma rifle, then standing next to them for a few rounds while you whacked them, that was the big problem to melee combat. Your pc was liable to be on the receiving end of some serious damage. Melee worked best indoors if you had a lot of action points and bonus moves so you could duck around walls and doors.
  20. 8. Although 7 was teetering on the abyss. If you bailed after 6, you did well for yourself.
  21. I wasn't aware that the 360 couldn't handle portable beds.
  22. Well, that's cool. I'm not saying people have to or even should agree with me. Heck, it scares me when they do. Anyway, even after all these years I still pay for the games I want to try (or demo them if possible), but I don't pirate them. Ever. So at least that is something positive, right? And I probably will buy Fallout 3, and I REALLY am hopeful that there is more to this game then we've been shown so far. I want there to be. Although I wil be most likely let others taste it first. Before I cough up the money.
  23. Is that directed at me? If so, I don't know what it means. Sorry. LOL!??! It was directed at you, and everything you've said for the last 3 pages, no offense intended . What can I say, you really don't seem that happy Bethseda are working on FO3... Or perhaps it's just Todd Howard. I'm actually looking forwards to some kind of rant when you've played the game and had a good amount of time to dissect FO3. I expect to see foaming at the mouth! *shrugs* I'm hopeful it will be fun. WHat I have seen so far hasn't given me a lot of hope that I will enjoy it, especially since I have a good sampling of Todd's previous work on MW and Oblivion. I'm commenting on what I see and read, nothing more. If by cynical, you mean not believing that what I read is 100% accurate, then yes, I'm cynical. And unless all the game companies and publishers want to refund all the hundreds of dollars I've spent in good faith on games that did not do what they were advertised to do, missing features, were blantantly unfinshed, or unplayably buggy, then I think my attitude of "I'll believe it when I see it" is perfectly legitimate. You're free to feel as you want as well.
  24. Is that directed at me? If so, I don't know what it means. Sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...