Non-romance dynamics in games

[Guest Slinky]

I remember well my first go on Oblivion. First I ran amok in the really nice looking landscape enjoying the free world, then about week later after the initial enthusiasm I started to pay attention to rest of the game. Didn't take long to realise how awfully shallow and stupid the game world was. Uninstalled and forgot.

 

Years later I tried it again very heavily modded, and for my surprise I really enjoyed the game. Sure the world was still awfully shallow and stupid, but Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul mod alone made the game about billion times better. Played the game and the dlc happily from start to finish.

[Amentep]

I tend to expect the type of open world Bethesda does to be shallow - its the trade off for their "do everything" approach to the game, IMO.

[Guest Slinky]

Except Obsidians Fallout: New Vegas isn't shallow. How bout that.

[Amentep]

I'd consider Obsidian's FONV to be an Obsidian game and not a Bethesda game.

 

Obs' FONV had strong narrative and a good bit of reactivity to doing various things.  That said, I wish there had been a better representation of Caesar's Legion but that's neither here nor there.

[Nonek]

To be fair though you're not going to get a fair representation while travelling through a disputed borderland, where everybody is all too aware that slavery and a grisly death is a very real possibility if the Legion should triumph. If they had an area set behind enemy line, where one can see the day to day life of the Legion protectorates and its people, then that might have been a possibility.

 

Still Rose's conversation was interesting.

[Guest Slinky]

I'd consider Obsidian's FONV to be an Obsidian game and not a Bethesda game.

Of course, I just meant FONV showed that do everything approach does not mean the game is going to be automatically shallow, like you made it sound.

[Amentep]

My problem with the Legion really lies with Vulpes Inculta.  If you challenge him on their actions in Nipton, he specifically says you should try to attack him if you disagree.

 

Then you attack him per his request and the rest of Ceasar's gang is all "oh noes, you attacked our dood, we gots to defend him" despite the fact that he pretty much asked me to shoot him in the face repeatedly.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd consider Obsidian's FONV to be an Obsidian game and not a Bethesda game.

Of course, I just meant FONV showed that do everything approach does not mean the game is going to be automatically shallow, like you made it sound.

 

 

I'd argue you can't do everything; there's a lot of choices about siding with groups that cuts those groups out of the narrative for you easily Its relatively easy to get on the Powder Gangers and the Legion against you early on, for example.  Or to choose to side for/against the New Vegas computer guy and really change things up permanantly.

 

Compare that to Skyrim where you can join most of the factions without penalty (I think the only one that "counts" is the imperial / stormcloaks one and the Blades/Greybeards) even when it wouldn't make sense (Why would the Imperials allow in the person who killed the Emperor's cousin at the wedding if you do the Dark Brotherhood quest and get caught?) or how the game railroads you into other choices (Why can't you NOT join the Mages Guild or the Greybeards and still advance the central quest?)

Edited July 22, 2013 by Amentep

[Tale]

To be honest, I don't really see a lot of difference in Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim.  Gameplay wise they all do similar things; story too.  Graphics are the only big differences and implementation of the character system (which ultimately are variations on a theme). 

 

I keep meaning to go back to Oblivion at some point; I didn't hate it so much as I just really disliked the Oblivion map after repeated trips.

Morrowind and Skyrim don't have the same scaling problem Oblivion does. Oblivion becomes nearly unplayable for me around level 15 or 20. Then it becomes playable around 30. Then it becomes a complete snooze after 40.

 

All level ranges are vague guesses based on memory.

 

The HP scales ridiculously. This is all playing as a stealth guy.

1-15: Your stealth isn't strong enough to sneak up on anyone, but your stats are rounded enough that you can fight toe to toe.

15-30: Your stealth is strong enough to sneak up on people, which also means your stealth starts skyrocketing. Your other stats fall behind. You get a good first hit in, but then you're dead. Hope you never have to deal with Clannfear without a ranged weapon, you'll kill yourself.

30-40: You changed your entire playstyle so that you had some defense and regular damage, now back to sneaking.

40: Your sneak is so strong, nobody detects you even while you sneak attack them. But they have so much health that it still takes 8 swings at full sneak damage.

 

Fallout 3 is the same way. You end up constantly running into Albino Radscorps and Deathclaws with a million HP at higher levels.

[Amentep]

Yeah I found stealth to be unplayable to Oblivion (which is the type of character I played in Morrowind).  So I played a heavy armor two-handed weapon guy.

 

I loved beam weapons in the earlier Fallouts (when I could get them in 1-2, using Mothership Zeta to munchkin up in 3) but they were worthless in Fallout NV because they never damaged most anything (at least not early on, but even though this was said to be a bug, after the patches they seemed to never get over the DT of opponents).  So I played a different type of character.

 

I don't think that the inherent inability to play a specific type of character makes a game "bad" so much as it makes it badly designed / poorly implemented for that style of play.  Oblivion was fine with a walking tank. 

[Hurlshort]

I'm always shocked how many people loved Fallout 3 but hated F:NV.  I have my preferences, but I don't get the overwhelmingly negative reaction some people had to one over the other.  

[BruceVC]

I'm always shocked how many people loved Fallout 3 but hated F:NV.  I have my preferences, but I don't get the overwhelmingly negative reaction some people had to one over the other.  

 

Same as me, I enjoyed both games tremendously but F:NV offered the better overall RPG experience and entertainment.

 

I'll never forget the excitement when my character finally reached New Vegas. It took me about 18 hours, I was wounded, almost out of ammo  and being chased by Deathclaws and I had this vague idea that Vegas was ahead. It was night and I remember going over this hill and seeing the lights of New Vegas

 

It was like finding an oasis in the desert when you have NO water left and you absolutely parched  

[HoonDing]

Oblivion is fun to play as a mage, way better than Skyrim too. Only the enchanting in Skyrim is better. But Skyrim has much better warrior and stealth gameplay.

[Guest Slinky]

I'm always shocked how many people loved Fallout 3 but hated F:NV.  I have my preferences, but I don't get the overwhelmingly negative reaction some people had to one over the other.

A friend of mine who likes FO3 doesnt like New Vegas because "The world is boring, there isn't nearly enough action, just endless amounts of boring wasteland without anyone to shoot". He also doesn't notice any difference in dialog and quest quality between the games.

 

Looks to me more casual inclined like FO3 more, while people who expect little deeper experince like New Vegas.

[Nepenthe]

Fo3 bored me to tears, fonv was a really good game, but one I haven't been able to bring myself to replay or purchase the dlc for. It was... Heavy, for lack of a better word. Memento is a movie that brings out similar feelings for me. Mebbe the first time is somehow sacred and shouldn't be replicated.

[HoonDing]

NV should've ended once you got the chip back. I enjoyed the personal part of the main quest and some of the companions, but didn't care for the factions.

 

I don't really remember any quests from either Failout 3 or NV, only experiences. Like wandering around randomly around Washington, then running into Lyons' Pride and go kill the behemoth. And blowing up Caesar and his praetorians by scattering C4 all around his tent, followed by pushing the awesome button.

[Amentep]

I'm always shocked how many people loved Fallout 3 but hated F:NV.  I have my preferences, but I don't get the overwhelmingly negative reaction some people had to one over the other.  

 

 

I enjoyed both, personally.  They do different things, and I think they have success at most of the things they try to do (FO3 "end" notwithstanding).

[Humanoid]

I only got a few hours out of Fallout 3, as opposed to the triple digits of New Vegas. I had no particular motivation to do what the game wanted me to do (to be fair, NV had the same problem post-Benny), but perhaps the part that broke me was the game's insistence that, despite the world being a wide-open wasteland, I should have to navigate tunnels to get anywhere important. No thanks.

[Amentep]

I liked fighting in tunnels.

[BruceVC]

I liked fighting in tunnels.

 

Was this from your years of fighting in the 'Nam as a Tunnel Rat? I suppose old habits die hard... 

[Amentep]

 

I liked fighting in tunnels.

 

Was this from your years of fighting in the 'Nam as a Tunnel Rat? I suppose old habits die hard... 

 

 

No, I just didn't mind fighting in the tunnels.

[Orogun01]

I liked fighting in tunnels.

Play Legend of GrimRock.

[Amentep]

I'd like to. May get around to it someday...

[LadyCrimson]

I only got a few hours out of Fallout 3, as opposed to the triple digits of New Vegas. I had no particular motivation to do what the game wanted me to do (to be fair, NV had the same problem post-Benny), but perhaps the part that broke me was the game's insistence that, despite the world being a wide-open wasteland, I should have to navigate tunnels to get anywhere important. No thanks.

I like dungeons ... in moderation. Whether big castles, long caverns, old ruins. Wide open spaces are fun for roaming and exploring, but dungeons can give a sense of claustrophobia and "what's around the corner" too. Plus different combat tactics. Or more simply, I like variety.

 

That said, stuff like Legends of Grimrock are fun in short bursts, but they're not something I want to play long term. Probably why I preferred Doom over Wolfenstein (the originals, I mean). Doom at least had some variety in looks/design vs. only those same-y corridors and doors.

[Agiel]

It's with trepidation that I wonder how much Bethesda will take from New Vegas into Fallout 4. I dearly hope that Damage Threshold will supplant Damage Resistance for future Fallouts, and to me it would reek of extreme arrogance on Bethesda's part if they don't include things like skill-checks in dialogue and a Hardcore Survival mode in the box.

[Guest Slinky]

Hah, give Beth some credit, FO3 had skill checks in dialogue! Though it's perfectly understandable if your mind forcefully made you forget them...

 

And for the harcore mode.. eh.. doesnt sound something of Beths alley