RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[HoonDing]

I tried to replay Return to Krondor not too long ago, but it refused to run at all. I never found an arcane solution to make it run like with Betrayal in Antara.

[Fenixp]

Betrayal at Krondor

Is my memory just fooling me? I remember the game being open, but I also remember the story massively lacking in reactivity. All right, you've done it, I've got to replay Betrayal at Krondor now. I do hope you're happy.

 

Edit: Installed and launched it for a bit. My god that game is so good. The free exploration, the awesome and to my knowledge never replicated puzzle chests, the writing, the grid-based combat... So good. Thank you for prompting me to try it again, even if not purposefully.

 

I still do not see any answers as to why modern game, that are supposedly so evolved and innovative, are not implementing features that were commonplace decades ago, and in fact are busy stripping them away.

Well of course you don't, mostly because I'm not entirely sure which features are you talking about. Vast majority of features which were stripped away I personally don't particularly miss and those that I always enjoyed are still around. I mean, are we talking about ability to use everything with everything? Dialogues which allowed you to freely type what you want to say, that sort of thing? If you're just talking about games with good narrative, now there's as few of them as there's ever been - turns out they're kind of difficult to produce. But they're still around.

 

I tried to replay Return to Krondor not too long ago, but it refused to run at all. I never found an arcane solution to make it run like with Betrayal in Antara.

It should work quite fine with DosBox. Have you tried GOG version?

Edited January 31, 2016 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

 

I still do not see any answers as to why modern game, that are supposedly so evolved and innovative, are not implementing features that were commonplace decades ago, and in fact are busy stripping them away.

 

Well of course you don't, mostly because I'm not entirely sure which features are you talking about. Vast majority of features which were stripped away I personally don't particularly miss and those that I always enjoyed are still around. I mean, are we talking about ability to use everything with everything? Dialogues which allowed you to freely type what you want to say, that sort of thing? If you're just talking about games with good narrative, now there's as few of them as there's ever been - turns out they're kind of difficult to produce. But they're still around.

 

To repeat and clarify what I wrote in my post at the bottom of the last page: NPC schedules, Day and night cycles, living reactive worlds, environmental interaction, any gameplay other than combat and conversation, organic map design and directions rather than quest compasses and markers, investigation and exploration rather than some form of idiot vision, Thief like sound design, a magic system as broad and useful as that found in the Ultimas, and no loading screens.

 

Even Larian who are quite obviously fans of the Ultima series and trying to pay homage to it admit they can't implement many of these, and one has to wonder when a twenty five year old game cannot be matched by new developers what has gone wrong? Surely these features should be commonplace now with how much gaming has supposedly evolved and innovated, easy to implement and a fairly standard procedure, yet they are not and one has to ask oneself why?

 

Looking at what Mike Singleton (RIP) did with Lords of Midnight and what is the norm now, I cannot help but feel that gaming has not evolved or built upon its forebears achievements, and have to ask why. Is it the publisher model, which consumes but rarely shares? Is it consumers whom will settle for far less and not demand higher standards, thus disincentivising developers who look at what the latest "core" title has shifted in comparison to their ambitious, rich, heartfelt effort and grow discouraged?

[Malcador]

SC2 Match fixing in Korea - http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/414443,starcraft-ii-elite-match-fixing-revealed.aspx

 

One guy arrested over it, dang

[Keyrock]

SC2 Match fixing in Korea - http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/414443,starcraft-ii-elite-match-fixing-revealed.aspx

 

One guy arrested over it, dang

Where there is money to be made fraud will follow.  It's the natural progression of things.

[the_dog_days]

@Fenixp: Betrayal at Kondor is a kind accidentally mashup of open sandbox and a novel. Aside from stock questions to NPCs, the players aren't in the driver's seat, narrative speaking, which is why the story works. There are plenty of games that go out of their way to give the illusion of choice when in fact all roads lead to the same ending. In such games the logic and narrative progression fail because at the end (when immersion and emotional payoff are paramount) the illusion falls away and you see the game for what it really is. Betrayal at Korndor, on the other hand, tells one story and one story only, but what a good story it is.

 

I wish there were more games like BAK that did away with the spray painted aluminum of 'choice and consequence' that really isn't a choice and is entirely without consequence, in favor of a single story that is well written and narratively coherent.

[Fenixp]

First of all, I'm sorry for the wall of text. I really am, I'm generally terrible at expressing myself briefly and when I try, what comes out is an incomprehensible mess.

 

To repeat and clarify what I wrote in my post at the bottom of the last page: NPC schedules, Day and night cycles, living reactive worlds, environmental interaction, any gameplay other than combat and conversation, organic map design and directions rather than quest compasses and markers, investigation and exploration rather than some form of idiot vision, Thief like sound design, a magic system as broad and useful as that found in the Ultimas, and no loading screens.

Were those standards, really? When? I mean I got hugely into RPGs in the late 90s with the release of Fallout and never could get into Ultima games (which might have been a mistake and I might give them another shot one of these days) and the only game implementing most of what you mention that I know of was Gothic, most other RPGs I have played back then either didn't really have any of that or only contained these features in extremely rudimentary forms - definitely not in the precise combination you have mentioned. And... Well, I wouldn't consider lack of loading screens a feature. Sure, you can make a game without loading screens still, but why? All you'd get are assets gimped in order to load fast enough. The whole reason for loading screens to exist is to lift memory limitations.

 

As for modern titles, well Elder Scrolls series come to mind as ones implementing vast majority (especially with disabled quest markers) in a big budget RPG. I wouldn't say all quest markers are a shame generally, but the overuse of them sure is. And yes, they include gameplay which doesn't need to center on combat if you don't want it to, albeit they still contain a ton of overcoming of adversity in some form.

 

Well, LA Noir probably combines even more, but I'm not sure that's exactly what you had in mind :-P

 

Looking at what Mike Singleton (RIP) did with Lords of Midnight and what is the norm now, I cannot help but feel that gaming has not evolved or built upon its forebears achievements, and have to ask why. Is it the publisher model, which consumes but rarely shares? Is it consumers whom will settle for far less and not demand higher standards, thus disincentivising developers who look at what the latest "core" title has shifted in comparison to their ambitious, rich, heartfelt effort and grow discouraged?

You're sort of making up conspiracy theories when the answer is very simple: Standards have changed and abstraction is not as prevalent. What you had to do to pass for NPC life cycle "back when" was to make a switch which would shuffle their positions at the night. What you need to do now is to painstakingly animate and script the entire process so that player can follow every single NPC home. That applies to a lot of features - they were half-arsed or tucked away from player entirely, whereas that's not quite possible in modern games.

 

Ambitions changed too - you can quite clearly see stark contrast of 90s optimism against today's realism. 20 years ago, a feature was brought to the table and developers went "Sure! We'll implement that, that's awesome!" and then it was in the game as a non-functioning mess, but looking nice and futuristic on feature list with some lucky exceptions. Today, you'll see a question "Yeah, but what will that bring to our players, really?" pop up a lot more.

 

Right, so while there aren't many games which implement all of these (and I would argue there never really were all that many), aren't you forgetting that in these years, we've had features evolve or being added? I mean, in older RPGs, fully featured stealth system was not really a thing since you brought up Thief. Complex crafting, graphically well represented construction of a village - neither are standards, but exist and work while they either didn't really or only on extremely abstracted levels. There's no way we'd ever get Skyrim's gameplay back then. Perhaps there's a way but I've not seen a game with the levels of reactivity of Dishonored (Deus Ex comes close, but is not quite there.) We've got big, open world first person shooters marrying several layers of gameplay which were quite simply not possible back then. We've got many singular experiences which might have been possible but never existed back then - LA Noir, Sunless Sea, Darkest Dungeon, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Valkyria Chronicles just to name a few that I played recently.

 

Gaming didn't devolve - gaming changed. Sure, if you pick a feature and start following it, you might find that it disappeared, but that's also not how evolution of media works and is an entirely incorrect way of looking at it, even if perhaps desirable for you (and now I'm not saying you're incorrect to like these features - now that would be stupid.) Features get routinely added, changed and removed, experimented on. This is a good thing, it paves the road to innovation. It's easy to point at a title and say: "Show me a carbon copy of these features!" but the only thing that constant copying and updating of the exact same set of features would lead to is extremely stale environment, don't you think?

 

Now, I get it - you like older games better. I'd be an idiot to say you're wrong to like them. What I would suggest, however, is trying to get out of the shackles you have imposed upon yourself and try to look for different experiences you have most certainly not seen back in the old days. It's a shame the free weekend for Sunless Sea ended, otherwise I'd plug it here again for you to try :-P

Edited February 1, 2016 by Fenixp

[Oerwinde]

@Fenixp: Betrayal at Kondor is a kind accidentally mashup of open sandbox and a novel. Aside from stock questions to NPCs, the players aren't in the driver's seat, narrative speaking, which is why the story works. There are plenty of games that go out of their way to give the illusion of choice when in fact all roads lead to the same ending. In such games the logic and narrative progression fail because at the end (when immersion and emotional payoff are paramount) the illusion falls away and you see the game for what it really is. Betrayal at Korndor, on the other hand, tells one story and one story only, but what a good story it is.

 

I wish there were more games like BAK that did away with the spray painted aluminum of 'choice and consequence' that really isn't a choice and is entirely without consequence, in favor of a single story that is well written and narratively coherent.

 

So far I feel like Witcher 3 nailed the balance. There is enough random poop for you to distract yourself when you don't feel like progressing the story, but when you do, its executed brilliantly.

[pmp10]

I wish there were more games like BAK that did away with the spray painted aluminum of 'choice and consequence' that really isn't a choice and is entirely without consequence, in favor of a single story that is well written and narratively coherent.

If only we could get premade characters back in western RPGs at all.

The whole 'you could be anyone' approach quickly turned into 'it doesn't matter'.

 

SC2 Match fixing in Korea - http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/414443,starcraft-ii-elite-match-fixing-revealed.aspx

One guy arrested over it, dang

That's the most successful SC2 player of the last 3-4 years.

If he's guilty Korean SC2 may collapse entirely.

Edited February 1, 2016 by pmp10

[the_dog_days]

 

 

@Fenixp: Betrayal at Kondor is a kind accidentally mashup of open sandbox and a novel. Aside from stock questions to NPCs, the players aren't in the driver's seat, narrative speaking, which is why the story works. There are plenty of games that go out of their way to give the illusion of choice when in fact all roads lead to the same ending. In such games the logic and narrative progression fail because at the end (when immersion and emotional payoff are paramount) the illusion falls away and you see the game for what it really is. Betrayal at Korndor, on the other hand, tells one story and one story only, but what a good story it is.

 

I wish there were more games like BAK that did away with the spray painted aluminum of 'choice and consequence' that really isn't a choice and is entirely without consequence, in favor of a single story that is well written and narratively coherent.

So far I feel like Witcher 3 nailed the balance. There is enough random poop for you to distract yourself when you don't feel like progressing the story, but when you do, its executed brilliantly.

I agree. When a game gets it right, choice and consequence style narratives are my favorite, the problem is that most of those types of games, IMO, don't get it right.

Edited February 1, 2016 by the_dog_days

[Nonek]

First of all, I'm sorry for the wall of text. I really am, I'm generally terrible at expressing myself briefly and when I try, what comes out is an incomprehensible mess.

 

To repeat and clarify what I wrote in my post at the bottom of the last page: NPC schedules, Day and night cycles, living reactive worlds, environmental interaction, any gameplay other than combat and conversation, organic map design and directions rather than quest compasses and markers, investigation and exploration rather than some form of idiot vision, Thief like sound design, a magic system as broad and useful as that found in the Ultimas, and no loading screens.

Were those standards, really? When? I mean I got hugely into RPGs in the late 90s with the release of Fallout and never could get into Ultima games (which might have been a mistake and I might give them another shot one of these days) and the only game implementing most of what you mention that I know of was Gothic, most other RPGs I have played back then either didn't really have any of that or only contained these features in extremely rudimentary forms - definitely not in the precise combination you have mentioned. And... Well, I wouldn't consider lack of loading screens a feature. Sure, you can make a game without loading screens still, but why? All you'd get are assets gimped in order to load fast enough. The whole reason for loading screens to exist is to lift memory limitations.

 

As for modern titles, well Elder Scrolls series come to mind as ones implementing vast majority (especially with disabled quest markers) in a big budget RPG. I wouldn't say all quest markers are a shame generally, but the overuse of them sure is. And yes, they include gameplay which doesn't need to center on combat if you don't want it to, albeit they still contain a ton of overcoming of adversity in some form.

 

Well, LA Noir probably combines even more, but I'm not sure that's exactly what you had in mind :-P

 

Looking at what Mike Singleton (RIP) did with Lords of Midnight and what is the norm now, I cannot help but feel that gaming has not evolved or built upon its forebears achievements, and have to ask why. Is it the publisher model, which consumes but rarely shares? Is it consumers whom will settle for far less and not demand higher standards, thus disincentivising developers who look at what the latest "core" title has shifted in comparison to their ambitious, rich, heartfelt effort and grow discouraged?

You're sort of making up conspiracy theories when the answer is very simple: Standards have changed and abstraction is not as prevalent. What you had to do to pass for NPC life cycle "back when" was to make a switch which would shuffle their positions at the night. What you need to do now is to painstakingly animate and script the entire process so that player can follow every single NPC home. That applies to a lot of features - they were half-arsed or tucked away from player entirely, whereas that's not quite possible in modern games.

 

Ambitions changed too - you can quite clearly see stark contrast of 90s optimism against today's realism. 20 years ago, a feature was brought to the table and developers went "Sure! We'll implement that, that's awesome!" and then it was in the game as a non-functioning mess, but looking nice and futuristic on feature list with some lucky exceptions. Today, you'll see a question "Yeah, but what will that bring to our players, really?" pop up a lot more.

 

Right, so while there aren't many games which implement all of these (and I would argue there never really were all that many), aren't you forgetting that in these years, we've had features evolve or being added? I mean, in older RPGs, fully featured stealth system was not really a thing since you brought up Thief. Complex crafting, graphically well represented construction of a village - neither are standards, but exist and work while they either didn't really or only on extremely abstracted levels. There's no way we'd ever get Skyrim's gameplay back then. Perhaps there's a way but I've not seen a game with the levels of reactivity of Dishonored (Deus Ex comes close, but is not quite there.) We've got big, open world first person shooters marrying several layers of gameplay which were quite simply not possible back then. We've got many singular experiences which might have been possible but never existed back then - LA Noir, Sunless Sea, Darkest Dungeon, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Valkyria Chronicles just to name a few that I played recently.

 

Gaming didn't devolve - gaming changed. Sure, if you pick a feature and start following it, you might find that it disappeared, but that's also not how evolution of media works and is an entirely incorrect way of looking at it, even if perhaps desirable for you (and now I'm not saying you're incorrect to like these features - now that would be stupid.) Features get routinely added, changed and removed, experimented on. This is a good thing, it paves the road to innovation. It's easy to point at a title and say: "Show me a carbon copy of these features!" but the only thing that constant copying and updating of the exact same set of features would lead to is extremely stale environment, don't you think?

 

Now, I get it - you like older games better. I'd be an idiot to say you're wrong to like them. What I would suggest, however, is trying to get out of the shackles you have imposed upon yourself and try to look for different experiences you have most certainly not seen back in the old days. It's a shame the free weekend for Sunless Sea ended, otherwise I'd plug it here again for you to try :-P

 

 

1. Loading screens: Both Dungeon Siege (a remarkably pretty game) the Ultimas and mow the Witcher 3 implemented loading screenless worlds without gimping assets.

 

2. The Elder Scrolls: No these are now poor imitations of the Ultima and Underworld games, and are still not as feature rich or well implemented as either.

 

3. Abstraction in NPC schedules: Once again no, every NPC in Ultima 7 had a realistic lifestyle, rising from their beds, breakfasting, working, relaxing at home or tavern, attending religious meetings, conducting affairs etc. There is more abstraction now not less. This was possible in games a quarter of a centurty ago and yet now isn't possible you state, this proves my point.

 

4. Games have evolved: No they haven't, the best stealth ever implemented was in Thief (an eighteen year old game) and many old RPGs had fully implemented stealth systems or invisibility that mimicked stealth. Crafting, in Ultima I could make bread, swords, brew potions, gather reagents and interact with almost every item in the world. Well represented construction of a village, Britain was probably the best representation of a city in any game, not to mention all of the other settlements in Britannia and the Serpent Isle. Fallout and Arcanum had amazing in game reactivity, especially the latter, easily the equal of Dishonoured's dual path.

 

5. Innovation: So a modern game unable to implement the features of a quarter of a century old game is now innovation, and a good thing? No you do not need to make exact carbon copies of a game, this is a vapid argument, but you should be equalling the technical accomplishments of decades past and can easily change the narrative, the themes dealt with, the graphical style and almost everything else. Having standards of quality is not an excuse to make stale copies of anything.

 

6. Assumptions: I play many modern games, and many old ones and can see the difference, I can see many instances of the degeneration and devolution of the genre, and make no excuses for that. I have often stated that I dislike Baldur's Gate because I played it after completing the Ultima collection, and found it to be a quite clear step backwards for RPGs: Gone was a living reactive world that one could interact with, gone were the NPCs living their own lives, gone was the massive utility of the spell system that allowed unlimited interactivity with the game, loading screens now needed to be implemented, the game was far smaller in scope, far less intriguing thematically, had a far less organic inventory and an obstructive UI, and really only improved on the graphics and combat.

 

Edit: If I were to list modern features that have actually evolved I would bring up of course graphics, but also motion capturing, physics modelling, the ability to mod through released tools, Occulus and virtual reality etcetera. I can see the advances that the technological side of gaming has made, however speaking as a player I am once again aghast at how little effort, innovation and evolution has occured in RPGs, despite the continued trumpeting of those that state the opposite repeatedly.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Nonek

[Fenixp]

1. Loading screens: Both Dungeon Siege (a remarkably pretty game) the Ultimas and mow the Witcher 3 implemented loading screenless worlds without gimping assets.

Yes. You can obfuscate your loading screens. I never claimed it's impossible. But even Witcher 3 is still loading a lot of assets in the background, and it's not entirely without loading screens either, and the way games are achieving this now is entirely different from how games achieved it over 20 years ago.

 

Edit: I guess I should clarify here a bit - yes, seamless worlds are the best and yes, loading screens are irritating. However, they're also such a minor annoyance that area transitions as loading screens are a lot cheaper way of achieving that goal than working on asset streaming. That was a feature easy enough to implement back when assets were often reused, just modulated programatically - that's not the case anymore tho, and if I'm have to pick where a development team should invest their money, removal of loading screens is very low on that priority list, especially if those games take place in instanced areas anyway.

 

2. The Elder Scrolls: No these are now poor imitations of the Ultima and Underworld games, and are still not as feature rich or well implemented as either.

They're what? While their features overlap, Elder Scrolls games offer considerably different experience to Ultima games - because their features are very different on quite substantial level. Claiming that Elder Scrolls titles and Ultima titles have exactly the same set of features is quite simply false, and that's even if we somehow consider Ultima Underworld and Ultima 7 to be one game, which they're quite clearly not.

 

I think the only comparison that sort of works is with Ultima 7 for its open world and loads of exploration, but I quite simply prefer the hands-on approach Elder Scrolls titles offer and I'm not a fan of dungeon crawling, so Ultima Underworld is out of the question. Even combining mechanics in ways in which they were not combined before is innovative if those mechanics work together well enough you know.

 

3. Abstraction in NPC schedules: Once again no, every NPC in Ultima 7 had a realistic lifestyle, rising from their beds, breakfasting, working, relaxing at home or tavern, attending religious meetings, conducting affairs etc. There is more abstraction now not less. This was possible in games a quarter of a centurty ago and yet now isn't possible you state, this proves my point.

Oh come on. Animated sprites are an abstraction when compared to a fully animated 3D model doing the same activity. Ultima 7 still used an obfuscated grid system as far as I know, so even collision detection was not that much of an issue. Do I really have to go into details on how is fully featured skeletal animation combined with proper collisions a tad more difficult to achieve than moving sprites?

 

4. Games have evolved: No they haven't, the best stealth ever implemented was in Thief (an eighteen year old game) and many old RPGs had fully implemented stealth systems or invisibility that mimicked stealth. Crafting, in Ultima I could make bread, swords, brew potions, gather reagents and interact with almost every item in the world. Well represented construction of a village, Britain was probably the best representation of a city in any game, not to mention all of the other settlements in Britannia and the Serpent Isle. Fallout and Arcanum had amazing in game reactivity, especially the latter, easily the equal of Dishonoured's dual path.

Of course except for Dishonored actually having three paths. And it reacting and changing around parts of the game to reflect your actions, down to details like your face never being shown on wanted posters if you manage a ghost run. I've played Fallout many times and vast majority of that game's reactivity lies in dialogue, chosen dialogue options and what you picked during character creation. Dishonored reacts and dynamically changes parts of itself not based on dialogue choices (altho that too), it changes based on how you play. Oh sure, there are instances in Fallout and Arcanum where massacring somebody gave you different reactions of other NPCs, but they were neither as common nor as substatial, the most important changes then only came during ending cutscenes. I have finished both of those games several times as opposed to Betrayal at Krondor, I do know them quite a bit.

 

As for Thief having the best stealth system out there - I liked stealth mechanics in Dishonored a good deal better. It has surfaces, it has light levels, sure it doesn't have water and moss arrows to influence these, but it exchanges that for supernatural abilities that I like even more and the AI is a good deal better (even if still quite dumb at times) But that wasn't my point at all - yes, older RPGs tried to imitate stealth, to a good extent even. But none had a stealth system as advanced as Skyrim, and given technical limitations of their times, they really could not contain it, that was my point. Did Thief, which entirely focused on stealth and was constructed around it, contain a better stealth system? That's cool, but also entirely irrelevant. If you focus on dissecting every single feature of a game and saying "Oh yeah, but that game did it better!", you're missing the point entirely - games don't work as a set of isolated mechanics which don't interact with each other in any way.

 

5. Innovation: So a modern game unable to implement the features of a quarter of a century old game is now innovation, and a good thing? No you do not need to make exact carbon copies of a game, this is a vapid argument, but you should be equalling the technical accomplishments of decades past and can easily change the narrative, the themes dealt with, the graphical style and almost everything else. Having standards of quality is not an excuse to make stale copies of anything.

I am actually equaling technical accomplishments of the past with the present. Thing is, that's not what you are doing - you are taking a set of features from Ultima and say newer games suck because they don't implement them better, which is looking at modern games with blinders on. You know why media stick to saying that gaming is more advanced and better than ever? Because gameplay styles and features which were either not possible or not available enough to be commonly used are widely accessible now. We have massive choice of gaming for people of all walks of life, of all generations and preferences. We have consoles which use motion tracking as a control method, we have games focused on middle aged people who never played videogames before, we have big MMO games for people without money, and then for people who don't want to dedicate too much time to gaming, we have massive AAA blockbusters, but we also have this massive indie scene. We have games using mechanics never seen before, games exploring worlds and stories which were quite simply never made before. Gaming is more healthy, varied and welcoming than it's ever been - but yes, there's nothing like Ultima so modern games are clearly worse.

 

If you focus your rant down purely on the genre of RPG games, sure, it could work to an extent, but I still enjoy every Elder Scrolls game up from Morrowind a lot more than I enjoyed Ultima series and I can give you a list of reasons for that. If your argument is that RPG games didn't advance much past their peak in popularity in 90s, I will absolutely agree with you. But talking about gaming in general is a lot more tricky. And besides, and I've made that argument several times already, Ultima games were a peak of RPG genre even back then. They were not the norm - they were the role model every other RPG developer looked up to. So yes, naturally, they will stand on their own even now, 20 years later, just like we still enjoy TV shows and movies made over 50 years ago. But that doesn't automatically mean gaming as a whole didn't move anywhere.

 

Edit: I mean, if I think about it - yes, what you're saying makes a good deal of sense if we talk about RPG games. I mean they did evolve as modern RPG is something entirely different than what was considered an RPG 20 years ago, and by that I mean they're actually third person shooters/sword...sers or something along those lines with a strong focus on narrative. And the more I think about your points the more I realize that RPGs I have enjoyed the most during the last few years were indeed heavily influenced in oldschool RPGs

 

I have often stated that I dislike Baldur's Gate because I played it after completing the Ultima collection, and found it to be a quite clear step backwards for RPGs

*Hugs Nonek*

Thank you. I was so underwhelmed when playing Baldur's Gate back in the days, dear lord.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

 

1. Loading screens: Both Dungeon Siege (a remarkably pretty game) the Ultimas and mow the Witcher 3 implemented loading screenless worlds without gimping assets.

Yes. You can obfuscate your loading screens. I never claimed it's impossible. But even Witcher 3 is still loading a lot of assets in the background, and it's not entirely without loading screens either, and the way games are achieving this now is entirely different from how games achieved it over 20 years ago.

 

Edit: I guess I should clarify here a bit - yes, seamless worlds are the best and yes, loading screens are irritating. However, they're also such a minor annoyance that area transitions as loading screens are a lot cheaper way of achieving that goal than working on asset streaming. That was a feature easy enough to implement back when assets were often reused, just modulated programatically - that's not the case anymore tho, and if I'm have to pick where a development team should invest their money, removal of loading screens is very low on that priority list, especially if those games take place in instanced areas anyway.

 

2. The Elder Scrolls: No these are now poor imitations of the Ultima and Underworld games, and are still not as feature rich or well implemented as either.

They're what? While their features overlap, Elder Scrolls games offer considerably different experience to Ultima games - because their features are very different on quite substantial level. Claiming that Elder Scrolls titles and Ultima titles have exactly the same set of features is quite simply false, and that's even if we somehow consider Ultima Underworld and Ultima 7 to be one game, which they're quite clearly not.

 

I think the only comparison that sort of works is with Ultima 7 for its open world and loads of exploration, but I quite simply prefer the hands-on approach Elder Scrolls titles offer and I'm not a fan of dungeon crawling, so Ultima Underworld is out of the question. Even combining mechanics in ways in which they were not combined before is innovative if those mechanics work together well enough you know.

 

3. Abstraction in NPC schedules: Once again no, every NPC in Ultima 7 had a realistic lifestyle, rising from their beds, breakfasting, working, relaxing at home or tavern, attending religious meetings, conducting affairs etc. There is more abstraction now not less. This was possible in games a quarter of a centurty ago and yet now isn't possible you state, this proves my point.

Oh come on. Animated sprites are an abstraction when compared to a fully animated 3D model doing the same activity. Ultima 7 still used an obfuscated grid system as far as I know, so even collision detection was not that much of an issue. Do I really have to go into details on how is fully featured skeletal animation combined with proper collisions a tad more difficult to achieve than moving sprites?

 

4. Games have evolved: No they haven't, the best stealth ever implemented was in Thief (an eighteen year old game) and many old RPGs had fully implemented stealth systems or invisibility that mimicked stealth. Crafting, in Ultima I could make bread, swords, brew potions, gather reagents and interact with almost every item in the world. Well represented construction of a village, Britain was probably the best representation of a city in any game, not to mention all of the other settlements in Britannia and the Serpent Isle. Fallout and Arcanum had amazing in game reactivity, especially the latter, easily the equal of Dishonoured's dual path.

Of course except for Dishonored actually having three paths. And it reacting and changing around parts of the game to reflect your actions, down to details like your face never being shown on wanted posters if you manage a ghost run. I've played Fallout many times and vast majority of that game's reactivity lies in dialogue, chosen dialogue options and what you picked during character creation. Dishonored reacts and dynamically changes parts of itself not based on dialogue choices (altho that too), it changes based on how you play. Oh sure, there are instances in Fallout and Arcanum where massacring somebody gave you different reactions of other NPCs, but they were neither as common nor as substatial, the most important changes then only came during ending cutscenes. I have finished both of those games several times as opposed to Betrayal at Krondor, I do know them quite a bit.

 

As for Thief having the best stealth system out there - I liked stealth mechanics in Dishonored a good deal better. It has surfaces, it has light levels, sure it doesn't have water and moss arrows to influence these, but it exchanges that for supernatural abilities that I like even more and the AI is a good deal better (even if still quite dumb at times) But that wasn't my point at all - yes, older RPGs tried to imitate stealth, to a good extent even. But none had a stealth system as advanced as Skyrim, and given technical limitations of their times, they really could not contain it, that was my point. Did Thief, which entirely focused on stealth and was constructed around it, contain a better stealth system? That's cool, but also entirely irrelevant. If you focus on dissecting every single feature of a game and saying "Oh yeah, but that game did it better!", you're missing the point entirely - games don't work as a set of isolated mechanics which don't interact with each other in any way.

 

5. Innovation: So a modern game unable to implement the features of a quarter of a century old game is now innovation, and a good thing? No you do not need to make exact carbon copies of a game, this is a vapid argument, but you should be equalling the technical accomplishments of decades past and can easily change the narrative, the themes dealt with, the graphical style and almost everything else. Having standards of quality is not an excuse to make stale copies of anything.

I am actually equaling technical accomplishments of the past with the present. Thing is, that's not what you are doing - you are taking a set of features from Ultima and say newer games suck because they don't implement them better, which is looking at modern games with blinders on. You know why media stick to saying that gaming is more advanced and better than ever? Because gameplay styles and features which were either not possible or not available enough to be commonly used are widely accessible now. We have massive choice of gaming for people of all walks of life, of all generations and preferences. We have consoles which use motion tracking as a control method, we have games focused on middle aged people who never played videogames before, we have big MMO games for people without money, and then for people who don't want to dedicate too much time to gaming, we have massive AAA blockbusters, but we also have this massive indie scene. We have games using mechanics never seen before, games exploring worlds and stories which were quite simply never made before. Gaming is more healthy, varied and welcoming than it's ever been - but yes, there's nothing like Ultima so modern games are clearly worse.

 

If you focus your rant down purely on the genre of RPG games, sure, it could work to an extent, but I still enjoy every Elder Scrolls game up from Morrowind a lot more than I enjoyed Ultima series and I can give you a list of reasons for that. If your argument is that RPG games didn't advance much past their peak in popularity in 90s, I will absolutely agree with you. But talking about gaming in general is a lot more tricky. And besides, and I've made that argument several times already, Ultima games were a peak of RPG genre even back then. They were not the norm - they were the role model every other RPG developer looked up to. So yes, naturally, they will stand on their own even now, 20 years later, just like we still enjoy TV shows and movies made over 50 years ago. But that doesn't automatically mean gaming as a whole didn't move anywhere.

 

I have often stated that I dislike Baldur's Gate because I played it after completing the Ultima collection, and found it to be a quite clear step backwards for RPGs

*Hugs Nonek*

Thank you. I was so underwhelmed when playing Baldur's Gate back in the days, dear lord.

 

 

1. Loading screens: If a game could do it twenty five years ago then it should be commonplace nowadays and not an issue, if not then as i have stated there has been a devolution. It may not be high on your list, that is totally subjective however.

 

2. Ultima and the Underworlds inspiring the Elder Scrolls: The Elder Scrolls were and are an inferior copy of Underworld set in the open world that Ultima did with far more quality and depth, this is obvious to anyone who has played them all. They poorly ape the features the Ultimas and lack the mechanical reinforcement, being mainly larping simulators now for those who like playing make believe without the game acknowleding that in any way.

 

3. NPC schedules: How a 3d character is modelled is none of my business, if however at the end of the day a decades old game has its NPC having more believable routines and lives then what can be made in a modern game, then I draw an obvious conclusion and don't excuse it.

 

4. Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the ending screens: Totally untrue especially in Arcanum, one could miss the latter portion of the game by attacking Nasrudin and being exiled to the Void, one can approach any quest in a number of manners, one can assassinate or get rid of any number of NPCs who are plot critical, NPCs react to race, affinity and each quest has multiple methods of solution, each skill had a quest to master it, there were numerous hidden places that were only findable after much searching or following rumours, and it was set in a huge world rather than a number of small city districts. Fallout does much the same thing to a lesser scale and the world will change to accomodate your decisions and actions, from the Deaths Hand recognising his father to any of a hundred other reactions.

 

4b. Thief and stealth: Many old RPGs had stealth systems as I said before and actual invisibility, and the darkness, organic map design, and sound design of Thief was quite clearly the zenith of the stealth genre. Modern developers should be matching this as standard now rather than being excused from any criticism when they make worse systems.

 

5. Inclusivity, and excusing the ability to ape decades old features: Yes many more people do play games now, and this is an excuse to streamline and remove quality and features why exactly? No the increased viability of gaming should drive quality up, drive technology forward and make innovation a priority rather than stripping features and devolving with each generation. Simply excusing the degeneration of gaming does nothing but give developers and publishers an excuse to make less content, implement less features and strip down reactivity to a bare minimum. A wise consumer should be demanding more and asking why they are not living up to their heritage, not asking for less and less.

 

As for preferring Moorowind to all of the Ultimas, that is your preference but Ultima blazed a trail long before the Elder Scrolls aped them, and to me was a far more interesting, advanced and groundbreaking series with far deeper thematic elements and narrative brilliance. If one is looking at objective quality, one mus look to the Ultimas and acknowledge them first and foremost, its just a pity that the game industry chose to abandon everything they built and devolve from the pinnacle they attained as we see in the Elder Scrolls and IE games.

 

Edit: Tl/dr, I believe the Americans have a saying: Don't urinate down my back and tell me its raining! This is my exact sentiment on gaming, don't trumpet of evolving and innovation when you can't match what was done decades ago.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Nonek

[Fenixp]

1. Loading screens: If a game could do it twenty five years ago then it should be commonplace nowadays and not an issue, if not then as i have stated there has been a devolution. It may not be high on your list, that is totally subjective however.

Where is the point in devoting time into getting rid of loading screens for games functioning in instances anyway? Your insistence on complaining on feature which is quite simply unimportant for vast majority of games is baffling. But okay, we all have our bugbears I guess. Yes, they're inexcusable in Elder Scrolls titles - but vast majority of games with open world actually don't have loading screens at all, aside from fast travel.

 

being mainly larping simulators now for those who like playing make believe without the game acknowleding that in any way.

Yes. Exactly. That's what differenciates them and that's what those games are entirely constructed around. Ultima games could not really be used as larping simulators due to their focus on narrative. That their mechanics were used to reinforce the narrative is why. It's cool that you don't like it, but claiming objective inferiority is incredibly misplaced.

 

3. NPC schedules: How a 3d character is modelled is none of my business, if however at the end of the day a decades old game has its NPC having more believable routines and lives then what can be made in a modern game, then I draw an obvious conclusion and don't excuse it.

So you missed Oblivion, where NPCs can even dynamically steal from each other?

 

Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the ending screens

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything of the sort. I said the most swooping changes could be seen in the outros, while all other decisions only lead to changed dialogue for the most part. And an abrupt ending. I mean... Okay, that's never been seen again, right? Definitely not last year in Far Cry 4 last time that I know of.

 

What I did say is that Dishonored has the way you play the game directly change composition of opponents you encounter in all future levels, design of some future levels, dialogues and a lot of both minor and major details, like some NPCs being hostile, others not etc. Not conversation options that you pick, not character stats that you select beforehand - the game tracks how exactly do you play and then adjusts later parts of itself to this. Has a lot of this been done in old RPGs? Yes, I don't doubt that. Has it been done to this extent? No, not really.

 

4b. Thief and stealth: Many old RPGs had stealth systems as I said before and actual invisibility, and the darkness, organic map design, and sound design of Thief was quite clearly the zenith of the stealth genre. Modern developers should be matching this as standard now rather than being excused from any criticism when they make worse systems.

So, what did Thief do that Dishonored didn't? The biggest deal of Thief were reactive surfaces and light/shadow play. Dishonored has both. In Thief, you could use tools to influence these. In Dishonored, you have tools to directly influence opponents. What's next? Besides, you'll actually find that yes, Thief is the benchmark for modern stealth games, which is why most contain light/dark and surface sound mechanics.

 

As for RPGs, okay: Do give me old RPG with stealth system as involved as in Skyrim. Skyrim's stealth system tracks vision cones, sound player makes based on his equipment and I believe surface altho I'm not entirely sure of that, and it definitely tracks light levels. AI attempts to simulate varying degrees of awareness of patrolling guards.

 

5. Inclusivity, and excusing the ability to ape decades old features: Yes many more people do play games now, and this is an excuse to streamline and remove quality and features why exactly? No the increased viability of gaming should drive quality up, drive technology forward and make innovation a priority rather than stripping features and devolving with each generation. Simply excusing the degeneration of gaming does nothing but give developers and publishers an excuse to make less content, implement less features and strip down reactivity to a bare minimum. A wise consumer should be demanding more and asking why they are not living up to their heritage, not asking for less and less.

Okay, how many times do I have to hammer in the point that the reason why these features didn't advance is quite simply because industry was not focused on them and was focusing on different features entirely? You keep repeating yourself, modern games didn't improve upon all features in old games ... Well, modern games didn't improve upon Ultima, more specifically. Yes, I get it. Please stop ignoring that they introduced many key features of their own.

 

Edit: Unique and extraordinary games, like Ultima series, are in short supply. They always were. Since the release of LA Noir, did a game which directly improved upon it come out? No, it did not. Ever since the release of Dishonored, did a game which improved directly upon it come out? No, it did not. Sunless Sea, Homeworld, Dawn of War II, Brothers - a Tale of Two Sons, Bastion, Transistor, Zeno Clash series, the list goes on and on - they're all unique games from all time periods of gaming which were never directly improved upon by games with the same, just technically more advanced features and never existed in more primitive forms either. Does that mean that if I pick any game, future gaming in general after them is devolving? No, it does not. As I said, your complaints work for RPGs to an extent, but not for gaming in general.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

 

1. Loading screens: If a game could do it twenty five years ago then it should be commonplace nowadays and not an issue, if not then as i have stated there has been a devolution. It may not be high on your list, that is totally subjective however.

Where is the point in devoting time into getting rid of loading screens for games functioning in instances anyway? Your insistence on complaining on feature which is quite simply unimportant for vast majority of games is baffling. But okay, we all have our bugbears I guess. Yes, they're inexcusable in Elder Scrolls titles - but vast majority of games with open world actually don't have loading screens at all, aside from fast travel.

 

being mainly larping simulators now for those who like playing make believe without the game acknowleding that in any way.

Yes. Exactly. That's what differenciates them and that's what those games are entirely constructed around. Ultima games could not really be used as larping simulators due to their focus on narrative. That their mechanics were used to reinforce the narrative is why. It's cool that you don't like it, but claiming objective inferiority is incredibly misplaced.

 

3. NPC schedules: How a 3d character is modelled is none of my business, if however at the end of the day a decades old game has its NPC having more believable routines and lives then what can be made in a modern game, then I draw an obvious conclusion and don't excuse it.

So you missed Oblivion, where NPCs can even dynamically steal from each other?

 

Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the ending screens

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything of the sort. I said the most swooping changes could be seen in the outros, while all other decisions only lead to changed dialogue for the most part. And an abrupt ending. I mean... Okay, that's never been seen again, right? Definitely not last year in Far Cry 4 last time that I know of.

 

What I did say is that Dishonored has the way you play the game directly change composition of opponents you encounter in all future levels, design of some future levels, dialogues and a lot of both minor and major details, like some NPCs being hostile, others not etc. Not conversation options that you pick, not character stats that you select beforehand - the game tracks how exactly do you play and then adjusts later parts of itself to this. Has a lot of this been done in old RPGs? Yes, I don't doubt that. Has it been done to this extent? No, not really.

 

4b. Thief and stealth: Many old RPGs had stealth systems as I said before and actual invisibility, and the darkness, organic map design, and sound design of Thief was quite clearly the zenith of the stealth genre. Modern developers should be matching this as standard now rather than being excused from any criticism when they make worse systems.

So, what did Thief do that Dishonored didn't? The biggest deal of Thief were reactive surfaces and light/shadow play. Dishonored has both. In Thief, you could use tools to influence these. In Dishonored, you have tools to directly influence opponents. What's next?

 

As for RPGs, okay: Do give me old RPG with stealth system as involved as in Skyrim. Skyrim's stealth system tracks vision cones, sound player makes based on his equipment and I believe surface altho I'm not entirely sure of that, and it definitely tracks light levels. AI attempts to simulate varying degrees of awareness of patrolling guards.

 

5. Inclusivity, and excusing the ability to ape decades old features: Yes many more people do play games now, and this is an excuse to streamline and remove quality and features why exactly? No the increased viability of gaming should drive quality up, drive technology forward and make innovation a priority rather than stripping features and devolving with each generation. Simply excusing the degeneration of gaming does nothing but give developers and publishers an excuse to make less content, implement less features and strip down reactivity to a bare minimum. A wise consumer should be demanding more and asking why they are not living up to their heritage, not asking for less and less.

Okay, how many times do I have to hammer in the point that the reason why these features didn't advance is quite simply because industry was not focused on them and was focusing on different features entirely? You keep repeating yourself, modern games didn't improve upon all features in old games ... Well, modern games didn't improve upon Ultima, more specifically. Yes, I get it. Please stop ignoring that they introduced many key features of their own.

 

Edit: Unique and extraordinary games, like Ultima series, are in short supply. They always were. Since the release of LA Noir, did a game which directly improved upon it come out? Not, it did not. Ever since the release of Dishonored, did a game which improved directly upon it come out? No, it did not. Sunless Sea, Homeworld, Dawn of War II, Brothers - a Tale of Two Sons, Bastion, Transistor, Zeno Clash series, the list goes on and on - they're all unique games from all time periods of gaming which were never directly improved upon by games with the same, just technically more advanced features and never existed in more primitive forms either. As I said, your complaints work for RPGs, but not for gaming in general.

 

 

1. Loading screens: What is the point of making a better game, and matching the achievements of the past, this should be self evident for any consumer interested in quality and iinovation rather than settling and excusing.

 

2. Larping simulators: I make no judgement on them, I simply regard them as poor games because one ultimately doesn't need them to play lets pretend, simply sit down and have a cup of tea while doing so, the computer is not needed.

 

3. Oblivion pickpocketing: Then that is an improvement and should be matched, built upon or exceeded, just as the gameplay of Ultima and numerous other games should have been but wasn't. After twenty years, this should be regarded as standard raher than standing out.

 

4. Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the loading screens: As I said however you wish to phrase it this is totally untrue, and how you play, what choices you make, what you are and what you have chosen to invest in changes many options in Arcanum, far more than in Dishonoured.

 

4b. Thief and Skyrim: As I said Thief had superior sound design, organic map design that aided exploration and the narrative to develop, and of course superior use of shadows and darkness rather than simply handwaving everything away and opting for teleportation. RPGs that can match Skyrims stealth systems, MGS and most of the AD&D games do much the same thing but base it off of player stats, but this Skyrim stealth system aped from Underworld is hardly new or innovative, crouch, avoid line of sight and embrace darkness has been in games for decades. If Skyrim is an RPG then i've got to say so is Thief and that does stealth far better than any other game.

 

5. Excusing the devolution: These features were not focused on and others were embraced you say, and yet you make excuses for loading screens not being important, you make excuses for why its not possible to mimic Ultimas NPC routines, you make excuses for stealth systems being poor, you make excuses for games not acknowledging what you do mechanically, you make an argument that other features were focused upon but then say that games have evolved and innovated. This does not sound like they have focused on other features, it sounds more like an excuse for not matching what their aged forebears could do as they cannot, and when asked a dev will usually state that such features are too expensive to implement and that they are focusing on "core" gameplay.

 

I'm in no way ignoring modern features that were introduced, however my argument rests on why decades old mechanics are now beyond modern developers.

 

Re-Edit: Games not being improved upon, this just proves my point, why speak of evolution and innovation when it is more a case of gradual devolution with an ocassional bright spark standing out, though i'd hardly put anything on that list as a bright spark, they're all rather mediocre and workaday. My argument was entirely about RPGs to begin with, however it works for the rest of the industry as well in my opinion.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Nonek

[rjshae]

...organic map design and directions rather than quest compasses and markers...

 

Pubs and taverns seem like natural places to obtain information about quest locations. Why don't game developers make more use of that?

[Fenixp]

1. Loading screens: What is the point of making a better game, and matching the achievements of the past, this should be self evident for any consumer interested in quality and iinovation rather than settling and excusing.

Procedural streaming of assets brought to the level of modern open world games is a huge technical achievement. Along with many ways of obscuring loading screens like loading behind pre-rendered videos or making player to run trough a tunnel of sorts to load the next section. Not all games implement this. It's a shame. For the game which don't implement it, it generally doesn't matter.

 

In old games, lack of loading screens was not a feature. It was necessity.

 

2. Larping simulators: I make no judgement on them, I simply regard them as poor games because one ultimately doesn't need them to play lets pretend, simply sit down and have a cup of tea while doing so, the computer is not needed.

Regardless of your opinion, these 'larping simulators' need to mechanically reinforce them being larping simulators.

 

3. Oblivion pickpocketing: Then that is an improvement and should be matched, built upon or exceeded, just as the gameplay of Ultima and numerous other games should have been but wasn't. After twenty years, this should be regarded as standard raher than standing out.

So fully animated day cycles was a standard in Ultima 7 days? It was difficult to create back then and it's difficult to create now. That's not an excuse, that's reality. It'll always be present in minority of games. It would be cool to see in all open world games that ever come out, but it's not realistic. If I'm to choose whether developers should focus their resources on daily schedule or "core" mechanics, it'll always be the "core" mechanics. Happily enough, daily schedule was one of the "core" mechanics for both Ultima 7 and Oblivion - which is why they're so fleshed out. Or do you think Ultima developers spent all of those resources on their development just because? Again, not an excuse as you keep trying to frame it - every project needs to choose how to focus their resources. If you have a better way of developing games, Unity engine is over there, C++ over there, Java over there, free Unreal engine over there. Take your pick.

 

4. Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the loading screens: As I said however you wish to phrase it this is totally untrue, and how you play, what choices you make, what you are and what you have chosen to invest in changes many options in Arcanum, far more than in Dishonoured.

It doesn't change options in Dishonored. It changes gameplay itself directly trough gameplay. No, neither Arcanum nor Fallout worked like that, not nearly to this extent. You want innovation, so that's innovation. That you choose to ignore it to push your own narrative is your call.

 

4b. Thief and Skyrim: As I said Thief had superior sound design, organic map design that aided exploration and the narrative to develop, and of course superior use of shadows and darkness rather than simply handwaving everything away and opting for teleportation.

Aside from tutorial, you don't have to use teleportation a single time in Dishonored. You can make use of lightning and shadows and only climb terrain using basic jump. Yes, you can finish the game as a ghost run this way. I found both sound and map design in Dishonored better, but we could go back and forth on that all day.

 

I'm in no way ignoring modern features that were introduced, however my argument rests on why decades old mechanics are now beyond modern developers.

Which is exactly why your argument is flawed, because that's quite simply not how evolution works. Some parts are stripped away, others are added - that's basis for evolution of a media and for innovation in general. Yes, some of the stripped away parts are actually quality ones and should not get stripped away. It's a shame, but it's also reasonable to expect them to make a comeback at one point or another.

 

As for modern games to not being able to replicate these features, everything running on Oblivion's engine had NPC schedules, just not as fleshed out as the feature didn't seem as important later on. Day and night cycles are pretty much a standard in most open world games, including dynamic weather - STALKER brought this to perfection when combining AI behavior with it (it also included NPC schedules and wildlife dynamically hunting, relocating and generally... Being wild.). We already talked about reactive worlds, this concept has never been abandoned. Eviromental interaction is rare as, again, it's difficult to implement for a lot of titles (and was always rare), but its boundaries have been pushed by many games, like Red Faction: Guerilla, Divinity: Original Sin or even Minecraft. There are many modern games which contain other gameplay than combat and conversation. There are many games which contain organic map design (yes, I finished previously discussed Dishonored entirely without quest markers and the map design works very well to lead you towards your objectives. That actually applies to Skyrim as well to an extent, vast majority of its map markers are useless and only serve to distract you from excellent level design.) Investigation and exploration instead of an idiot vision has been explored in more than one modern game, including LA Noir, and that game pushed investigation mechanics way further than ever seen before. We talked about Thief sound design, which was excellent, but very clearly outmatched by Battlefield 4 from technical standpoint.

 

When I look at the singular features you have named, none of them has been abandoned, and vast majority has been improved upon. It's just uncommon that they get all combined in a single game, which is quite logical given their amount. And that's leaving the fact that brand new features were introduced on the side, with entirely new control schemes and new ways of consuming these games.

 

Games not being improved upon, this just proves my point, why speak of evolution and innovation when it is more a case of gradual devolution with an ocassional bright spark standing out, though i'd hardly put anything on that list as a bright spark, they're all rather mediocre and workaday. My argument was entirely about RPGs to begin with, however it works for the rest of the industry as well in my opinion.

So you're saying that because extraordinary and unique games the likes of which we have never seen before routinely come out, industry is devolving? That makes no sense. Regardless of your opinion of their quality, you can't deny their uniqueness and innovativeness, unless you specifically choose to turn a blind eye and do just that.

 

Your posts read like those of a seasoned gamer who quite simply refuses to see quality in newer titles because of "ye olden days". And that's actually fine, I never even tried to argue against such standpoint. But do not try to pass such standpoint as an universal and undeniable truth by saying your opinion is objective somehow.

 

Pubs and taverns seem like natural places to obtain information about quest locations. Why don't game developers make more use of that?

Reason for this is actually incredibly stupid - it's because, often enough, level designers and writers quite simply can't communicate properly. Quest gets written separately from how the actual map layout looks like. This was not much of an issue in smaller teams (and still isn't, by the way, there are plenty of games with no quest markers of any description), but becomes one in bigger ones. It annoys me to no end.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Fenixp

[Keyrock]

 

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled GIANT wall of text.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Keyrock

[Nonek]

 

1. Loading screens: What is the point of making a better game, and matching the achievements of the past, this should be self evident for any consumer interested in quality and iinovation rather than settling and excusing.

Procedural streaming of assets brought to the level of modern open world games is a huge technical achievement. Along with many ways of obscuring loading screens like loading behind pre-rendered videos or making player to run trough a tunnel of sorts to load the next section. Not all games implement this. It's a shame. For the game which don't implement it, it generally doesn't matter.

 

In old games, lack of loading screens was not a feature. It was necessity.

 

2. Larping simulators: I make no judgement on them, I simply regard them as poor games because one ultimately doesn't need them to play lets pretend, simply sit down and have a cup of tea while doing so, the computer is not needed.

Regardless of your opinion, these 'larping simulators' need to mechanically reinforce them being larping simulators.

 

3. Oblivion pickpocketing: Then that is an improvement and should be matched, built upon or exceeded, just as the gameplay of Ultima and numerous other games should have been but wasn't. After twenty years, this should be regarded as standard raher than standing out.

So fully animated day cycles was a standard in Ultima 7 days? It was difficult to create back then and it's difficult to create now. That's not an excuse, that's reality. It'll always be present in minority of games. It would be cool to see in all open world games that ever come out, but it's not realistic. If I'm to choose whether developers should focus their resources on daily schedule or "core" mechanics, it'll always be the "core" mechanics. Happily enough, daily schedule was one of the "core" mechanics for both Ultima 7 and Oblivion - which is why they're so fleshed out. Or do you think Ultima developers spent all of those resources on their development just because? Again, not an excuse as you keep trying to frame it - every project needs to choose how to focus their resources. If you have a better way of developing games, Unity engine is over there, C++ over there, Java over there, free Unreal engine over there. Take your pick.

 

4. Fallout and Arcanum only had reactivity in the loading screens: As I said however you wish to phrase it this is totally untrue, and how you play, what choices you make, what you are and what you have chosen to invest in changes many options in Arcanum, far more than in Dishonoured.

It doesn't change options in Dishonored. It changes gameplay itself directly trough gameplay. No, neither Arcanum nor Fallout worked like that, not nearly to this extent. You want innovation, so that's innovation. That you choose to ignore it to push your own narrative is your call.

 

4b. Thief and Skyrim: As I said Thief had superior sound design, organic map design that aided exploration and the narrative to develop, and of course superior use of shadows and darkness rather than simply handwaving everything away and opting for teleportation.

Aside from tutorial, you don't have to use teleportation a single time in Dishonored. You can make use of lightning and shadows and only climb terrain using basic jump. Yes, you can finish the game as a ghost run this way. I found both sound and map design in Dishonored better, but we could go back and forth on that all day.

 

I'm in no way ignoring modern features that were introduced, however my argument rests on why decades old mechanics are now beyond modern developers.

Which is exactly why your argument is flawed, because that's quite simply not how evolution works. Some parts are stripped away, others are added - that's basis for evolution of a media and for innovation in general. Yes, some of the stripped away parts are actually quality ones and should not get stripped away. It's a shame, but it's also reasonable to expect them to make a comeback at one point or another.

 

As for modern games to not being able to replicate these features, everything running on Oblivion's engine had NPC schedules, just not as fleshed out as the feature didn't seem as important later on. Day and night cycles are pretty much a standard in most open world games, including dynamic weather - STALKER brought this to perfection when combining AI behavior with it (it also included NPC schedules and wildlife dynamically hunting, relocating and generally... Being wild.). We already talked about reactive worlds, this concept has never been abandoned. Eviromental interaction is rare as, again, it's difficult to implement for a lot of titles (and was always rare), but its boundaries have been pushed by many games, like Red Faction: Guerilla, Divinity: Original Sin or even Minecraft. There are many modern games which contain other gameplay than combat and conversation. There are many games which contain organic map design (yes, I finished previously discussed Dishonored entirely without quest markers and the map design works very well to lead you towards your objectives. That actually applies to Skyrim as well to an extent, vast majority of its map markers are useless and only serve to distract you from excellent level design.) Investigation and exploration instead of an idiot vision has been explored in more than one modern game, including LA Noir, and that game pushed investigation mechanics way further than ever seen before. We talked about Thief sound design, which was excellent, but very clearly outmatched by Battlefield 4 from technical standpoint.

 

When I look at the singular features you have named, none of them has been abandoned, and vast majority has been improved upon. It's just uncommon that they get all combined in a single game, which is quite logical given their amount. And that's leaving the fact that brand new features were introduced on the side, with entirely new control schemes and new ways of consuming these games.

 

Games not being improved upon, this just proves my point, why speak of evolution and innovation when it is more a case of gradual devolution with an ocassional bright spark standing out, though i'd hardly put anything on that list as a bright spark, they're all rather mediocre and workaday. My argument was entirely about RPGs to begin with, however it works for the rest of the industry as well in my opinion.

So you're saying that because extraordinary and unique games the likes of which we have never seen before routinely come out, industry is devolving? That makes no sense. Regardless of your opinion of their quality, you can't deny their uniqueness and innovativeness, unless you specifically choose to turn a blind eye and do just that.

 

Your posts read like those of a seasoned gamer who quite simply refuses to see quality in newer titles because of "ye olden days". And that's actually fine, I never even tried to argue against such standpoint. But do not try to pass such standpoint as an universal and undeniable truth by saying your opinion is objective somehow.

 

Pubs and taverns seem like natural places to obtain information about quest locations. Why don't game developers make more use of that?

Reason for this is actually incredibly stupid - it's because, often enough, level designers and writers quite simply can't communicate properly. Quest gets written separately from how the actual map layout looks like. This was not much of an issue in smaller teams (and still isn't, by the way, there are plenty of games with no quest markers of any description), but becomes one in bigger ones. It annoys me to no end.

 

 

1. Loading screens: No no having a loading screen was not a necessity, many games did have them.

2. Larping simulators: Regardless of your opinions games need to mechanically reinforce the players actions.

3. Excusing the devolution: Once again you miss the point, Ultima did this better than Oblivion twenty years earlier, by now this should be standard not a feature one hopes to include. Just what are the "core" features of an RPG anyway? I am no game designer, that is not my job, I am a consumer and naturally a critic, I should not need to make the games I wish to play when the market is so huge and so evolved and innovative.

4. Fallout and Arcanum: I'm not ignoring anything you ignore that Dishonoured has an easy time of it with a fixed protagonist, a small arena of conflict rather than the vast ones of Arcanum and Fallout, no alternative races, not half as many skills, spells, technological disciplines, backgrounds, traits, perks or a setting that reacts to them in gameplay and reinforces ones playstyle. It remains totally untrue that the only reactivity is in the ending slides, far from it.

4b. Thief versus Dishonoured: One cannot hide in the dark in Dishonoured life Garret could, and the sound design and the organic map design was far inferior.

5. Interjection: No  i'm afraid my argument is not flawed but your urge to excuse degenerate gameplay and the steady devolution of gaming has clouded your objectivity, game making should be an iterative process building upon the feats of the past, when it can at best try and ape them like the Elder Scrolls, and yet fail at any mechancial reinforcement and rely only on its users playing lets pretend, then that is a failure. All these features that you say are difficult to implement and not considered at the time, and the lack of organic map design and need for idiot vision in larping simulators, these are all signs that the industry is devolving. When a decades old game did them as standard, well then now with all this supposed "evolution and innovation" trumpeted by one and all, these things should be an breeze to implement and no big deal. You make my argument for me.

6. Mediocre games proclaimed as astounding: The games you listed were not groundbreaking, extraordinary or unique, just because you have poor taste I do not see why I have to share it.

 

This argument really seems to be going nowhere, you seek to excuse why games cannot match the accomplishments of their forebears and I naturally wish them to evolve as a consumer, rather than excuse their failure to implement decades old features. Keyrock has given a hint that he is growing tired of it so I suggest we abstain from discussion, I will not see how features that were standard a quarter of a century ago should now be hard to implement and you obviously are very satisfied with this situation.

 

@Keyrock: Yes that does look jolly interesting doesn't it, my first impression upon watching the tech demo a while ago was that this would be how a Witcher sees the world moving with his enhanced speed and senses, as if opponent are moving in molasses. A pity that the Witcher games could not adequately convey Geralts speed in such a fashion.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Nonek

[Fenixp]

First impressions of The Division.

For people who don't mind TotalBiscuit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdNv1alwCSc&ab_channel=TotalBiscuit,TheCynicalBrit

... I honestly have no other source. The only other thing I found was article on Forbes "5 Biggest problems with The Division beta" so I guess if you don't mind clickbaity articles...

 

you seek to excuse why games cannot match the accomplishments of their forebears and I naturally wish them to evolve as a consumer

I gave you a bloody list of every single feature you named and a game which either did it better or expanded upon it in an innovative fashion. I asked you for telling me when exactly were the "standards" you were talking about a standard. You keep dodging key points I make and when you have no way of retort, you reply with what essentially accounts to "Well but you're wrong because I don't like those games." and then pretend your opinion is the pinnacle of objectivity somehow. I mean...

 

"Regardless of your opinions games need to mechanically reinforce the players actions." - why would a larp simulator do that? The reason why Elder Scrolls games function like they do is precisely because they leave a lot to your imagination. It's how they operate, it's a large part of why they're popular, but it's bad design becaaaause you don't like it?

 

"by now this should be standard not a feature one hopes to include" - Should? Based on what, your expectations?

 

"When a decades old game did them as standard" - one game did them as standard. I'll let you think on that sentence for a second.

 

"well then now with all this supposed 'evolution and innovation' trumpeted by one and all, these things should be an breeze to implement and no big deal" - What do you base that statement on? Why does 'evolution and innovation' mean that every future game must have all features of older games, implemented better? How did you come to such expectation?

 

"Once again you miss the point, Ultima did this better than Oblivion twenty years earlier" - how? You even admitted dynamic behavior was step in the right direction, not to mention the technological leap between the same present in Oblivion and in Ultima 7.

 

"Dishonoured has an easy time of it with a fixed protagonist, a small arena of conflict rather than the vast ones of Arcanum and Fallout" - that's the bloody point, it took smaller scope and upped reactivity. If you didn't notice, the game is not an RPG, you brought the Arcanum and Fallout comparison which quite simply doesn't work. Dishonored had worse sound design and lighting than Thief because... Reasons.

 

You keep playing your arguments safely into subjective territory just to then go on and say that I'm objectively wrong. Your reasoning is entirely circular - you have decided that the only game which would mean evolution and innovation for gaming is modern replica of Ultima (because that's somehow innovation) and if there's no such a game, games are clearly devolving. You have created an entirely arbitrary set of standards without having anything to base those standards on (and which indeed were never a standard to begin with aside from lack of loading screens. Naturally, my argument that streaming assets made huge leaps in technological execution got ignored as it doesn't fit your narrative.), and since these made up standards are not met, you're clearly right. You're quite correct, this argument is not going anywhere.

 

edit: Removed the stupid attack on Nonek's personality which was entirely unwarranted.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

 

you seek to excuse why games cannot match the accomplishments of their forebears and I naturally wish them to evolve as a consumer

I gave you a bloody list of every single feature you named and a game which either did it better or expanded upon it in an innovative fashion. I asked you for telling me when exactly were the "standards" you were talking about a standard. You keep dodging key points I make and when you have no way of retort, you reply with what essentially accounts to "Well but you're wrong because I don't like those games." and then pretend your opinion is the pinnacle of objectivity somehow. I mean...

 

"Regardless of your opinions games need to mechanically reinforce the players actions." - why would a larp simulator do that? The reason why Elder Scrolls games function like they do is precisely because they leave a lot to your imagination. It's how they operate, it's a large part of why they're popular, but it's bad design becaaaause you don't like it?

 

"by now this should be standard not a feature one hopes to include" - Should? Based on what, your expectations?

 

"When a decades old game did them as standard" - one game did them as standard. I'll let you think on that sentence for a second.

 

"well then now with all this supposed 'evolution and innovation' trumpeted by one and all, these things should be an breeze to implement and no big deal" - What do you base that statement on? Why does 'evolution and innovation' mean that every future game must have all features of older games, implemented better? How did you come to such expectation?

 

"Once again you miss the point, Ultima did this better than Oblivion twenty years earlier" - how? You even admitted dynamic behavior was step in the right direction, not to mention the technological leap between the same present in Oblivion and in Ultima 7.

 

"Dishonoured has an easy time of it with a fixed protagonist, a small arena of conflict rather than the vast ones of Arcanum and Fallout" - that's the bloody point, it took smaller scope and upped reactivity. If you didn't notice, the game is not an RPG, you brought the Arcanum and Fallout comparison which quite simply doesn't work. Dishonored had worse sound design and lighting than Thief because... Reasons.

 

You keep playing your arguments safely into subjective territory just to then go on and say that I'm objectively wrong. Your reasoning is entirely circular - you have decided that the only game which would mean evolution and innovation for gaming is modern replica of Ultima (because that's somehow innovation) and if there's no such a game, games are clearly devolving. You have created an entirely arbitrary set of standards without having anything to base those standards on (and which indeed were never a standard to begin with aside from lack of loading screens. Naturally, my argument that streaming assets made huge leaps in technological execution got ignored as it doesn't fit your narrative.), and since these made up standards are not met, you're clearly right. You're quite correct, this argument is not going anywhere.

 

edit: Removed the stupid attack on Nonek's personality which was entirely unwarranted.

 

 

Well since you insist in continuing, I do apologise to any other forum members who are irritated by our hogging of the thread, if the mods wish me to desist please say the word and I shall do so:

 

1. You gave me a list of games with similar features to those I listed that came out twenty years or more later, none of them expanded or innovated on what was done before they merely replicated what was standard for their aged forebears. You are the one dodging points that I have raised since the beginning and providing no reasons for your excuses for lower standards of qaulity and why a feature implemented decades ago should now be so hard to implement as you have repeatedly stated. I have never once stated that my opinion is the pinnacle of objectivity this is another one of your assumptions, along with me not playing or liking modern games, and that I am blinded by nostalgia and am concocting conspiracy theories. I am merely making an argument and pointing out a trend in the industry while you are indulging in being outraged for some reasons.

 

2. Games need to mechanically reinforce a players actions because if they do not then there is no point in playing them, you can larp without the graphical accompaniment of Skyrim or whatever hiking simulator you prefer, just sit down, have a nice cup of tea and play lets pretend. This is a really quite an awful excuse for a developer to not bother implementing reactivity in their games, and that it is supported by a consumer takes my breath away.

 

3. Based on the fact that decades have passed, technology has progressed in leaps and bounds and the industry should be producing what was at the height of the genre twenty or thirty years ago as standard now with ease. This is common sense, and shouldn't need asking, and has nothing to do with my expectations.

 

4. Multiple games did this as standard, why was this not built and iterated upon moving on from there, rather than regressing and being forgotten about, except when poorly aped by the Elder Scrolls in a far less expansive fashion. Think on this if you wish.

 

5. Evolution and innovation simply means that you build and iterate upon the standards of the past and produce better systems, rather than abstracting and removing elements or implementing systems that are at best equal to those of the past. I didn't come to any such expectation, this is once again another one of your outraged assumptions.

 

6. Oblivion is a poor game in comparison to Ultima 7 in my opinion, in terms of thematic elements, narrative, NPC schedules, the ridiculous size of supposed cities, a dead world that is not the equal of Britannia, the heart of the empire suddenly being terraformed from what it was said to be in the lore, the lack of mechanical reinforcement and in most ways it simply does not match its aged predecessor. It had better combat (just) and graphics.

 

7. You were the one who raised Dishonoured as a beacon of reactivty, stated that Arcanum and Fallout had none except in the ending slides and  now do not wish to acknowledge that they had far more content, features, reactivity and choice in a far larger setting because you don't wish to see your cherished games criticised. I'm sorry but this is simply the truth, there is nothing wrong with your small game but it should at least match the games of the past, this is a reasonable expectation. Thiefs sound design is in my opinion subjectively better than Dishonoured, I was gripped by the former and bored senseless by the latter.

 

8. Please stop making assumptions on what I am doing. I am simply presenting a straightforward argument, and presenting a good candidate in Ultima for the highest technological achievements of its age: Asking why this has not been bettered, why it is now difficult to implement what it did as standard decades ago (which you have admitted repeatedly) and why that has not been built upon? I am neither ignoring the technological advancements that have occured or belittling them, I am simply stating that making excuses for modern gaming, raising mediocre examples that have barely matched Ultima, and growing outraged by any reasonable criticism is hardly conducive to providing answers as to why the game was not built upon, why lessons were not learned from it and why now in this age of supposed innovation and evolution we are barely catching up with what it did?

 

These are reasonable questions, and in my opinion one shouldn't grow outraged at anyone asking them, one should look to their best interests as a consumer and ask the same questions of publishers and developers, try and find an answer and perhaps, just maybe avoid making the same mistake that saw the lessons of Ultima forgotten and gaming devolve in the next generation.

 

I am not asking for a replica, a carbon copy or anything of the sort and never have done.

[Malcador]

http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=44191.0

 

New version of Soldat

[Lexx]

Man, I haven't played this game in years.

[Fenixp]

Wait a minute, Warhammer 40k MMO is still a thing? I thought it got cancelled?
 

...

We're literally running in circles now. Look, I apologize for lashing out on you earlier, your manner of argumentation frustrated me and I'm sure this went both ways. Our argument covered far too many topics (and this was my fault) for us to even be able to reasonably answer each other's questions in a satisfactory manner as they got lost in an avalanche of words. At the end of the the day, I do believe this topic ultimately comes down to one thing: You're dissatisfied with state of gaming today while I'm finding many more games I enjoy than I ever did in the past. From that standpoint, we can't agree, and so I'd say let us just agree to disagree. I honestly do hope that one day, a game or new series will start coming on which will satisfy you fully. Seeing your requirements, I would like to see such a game myself. For now, I would suggest taking a look at Kingdom Come: Deliverance in case you happen to not be aware of it.

[Oner]

Wait a minute, Warhammer 40k MMO is still a thing? I thought it got cancelled?

The previous iteration, yes. Now it's a Planetside-ish game, but right now  it's just a worse copy of Space Marine's multiplayer.