I didn't leave my favorite game series, my favorite game series left me. [Archive]

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 11:00

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion. I played both of them, and yes, Morrowind had some more depth here and there but more bugs as well. Oblivion had fun quests (Sheogorath, Dark Brotherhood), great graphics and the scenery was very plausible (unlike Morrowind). Most of the people that say Morrowind was far better just say that to look wise and old, I can't stand that.

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.

Skullheadhq

08-05-2011, 11:17

Does this mean that you will not buy Skyrim? I will, but fear that they further simplified and shallowed it down, but one can never be sure. And even if it is, it will probably be the best game of 2011 anyway. But they said Skyrim will be halfway between Morrowind and Oblivion, and be without generated landscapes and with 8 (!) people instead of one working on the dungeons.

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 11:18

Does this mean that you will not buy Skyrim? I will, but fear that they further simplified and shallowed it down, but one can never be sure.

Correct.

naut

08-05-2011, 11:31

Fallout.

Diablo.

Total War.

Others I can't think of at the moment.

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 11:34

Fallout.

Diablo.

Total War.

Others I can't think of at the moment.

Just out of curiosity (I have a very good idea about why you say Diablo) what turned you off with Total War and Fallout?

Also, I know Fallout III (incidentally made by Bethesda right after Oblivion) was widely considered disappointing by the Fallout fans and a dumb-down, but how did you feel about New Vegas? No redemption?

naut

08-05-2011, 11:54

Just out of curiosity (I have a very good idea about why you say Diablo) what turned you off with Total War and Fallout?

Also, I know Fallout III (incidentally made by Bethesda right after Oblivion) was widely considered disappointing by the Fallout fans and a dumb-down, but how did you feel about New Vegas? No redemption?
While Fallout III had its moments they were few and far between, and not worth the effort of the trudging through it's un-atmospheric wasteland. Additionally that was about the same time that I discovered S.T.A.L.K.E.R., a game that blew me away and a series that I now love, and Fallout III paled in comparison. New Vegas is better, enjoyable, fun, but still not has exciting or riveting as those first two games were for me.

Total War. I played the hell out of MTW I. I casually enjoyed RTW. But when I tried MTW II the campaign crashed after 1 turn due to bugs and the battles were winnable by simply charging with anything. I stopped playing after that, I just no longer enjoyed it. I've played a little STW II, while I think it is a solid game I don't think the genre is for me any more.

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 12:58

While Fallout III had its moments they were few and far between, and not worth the effort of the trudging through it's un-atmospheric wasteland. Additionally that was about the same time that I discovered S.T.A.L.K.E.R., a game that blew me away and a series that I now love, and Fallout III paled in comparison. New Vegas is better, enjoyable, fun, but still not has exciting or riveting as those first two games were for me.

Total War. I played the hell out of MTW I. I casually enjoyed RTW. But when I tried MTW II the campaign crashed after 1 turn due to bugs and the battles were winnable by simply charging with anything. I stopped playing after that, I just no longer enjoyed it. I've played a little STW II, while I think it is a solid game I don't think the genre is for me any more.

As a Shogun 1 player, I definitely miss the days of what definitely felt like more calculated, careful engagements where even the AI would stand back and harass with missile fire. Ever since Rome it does feel that all the AI does is blind charge and there isn't all that much room for tactics unless you just outnumber him and can outflank. I also think cavalry are a bit sketchy ever since Rome; it's nice to have the more realistic charging and running mechanics, but cavalry simply get slaughtered in fights yet are so heavily over-valued in auto-resolves that you wind up having to fight a lot of trash AI armies just because the threw light cavalry or 2 generals in. I can see what you mean about the battle system advancing but not quite being the same.

Thanks for your thoughts on Fallout, Fallout is a series I've heard about for years and years but always skirted on the outside, and I hear so many controversial things about 3 that I was curious.

Drunk Clown

08-05-2011, 13:34

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.

Are you serious? Are those the reasons? Sorry, but your arguments are laughable.

About the NPC's, are you really bothered by the fact that they have 2-3 dialogue options? Did you always read them in Morrowing, because in Morrowind they werealso always the same, no mather who you talked to. Heck just as commoners were useless in Oblivion they were in Morrowind. You are annoyed by the fact that Oblivion has 8 voice actors, well do you prefer Morrowind's choice? No voices, just reading it? AFAIK that's an improvement even if it's a little.

Morrowind also has the feature that a text would pop up without actually reading the book.

Morrowind is not Cyrodiil, so of course there are differences in how the people behave. And I did not really feel the presence of the politics.

And yeah sure, the followers of Dagoth Ur were no crazy psychopathic cult worshippers. :rolleyes:

Sure there were cons, but also pros in comparison with Morrowind. I was also annoyed by the Bandits in glass armor. A pro for me was the combat system, it still isn't perfect but at least better than the Morrowind BS.

By the way, have you ever thought about that when you get older, you don't like the series anymore? At least for me a perfect example for that is Pokemon. Crystal stays the best for, as it was my first. Still Black and White are so much better, but I didn't enjoyed them as much as Crystal. And no Pokemon is not for children alone.

I think that everyone has the feeling: It was better in the past. Even though they aren't but that's how you experience it. Another example: The Windwaker is the zelda game I enjoyed the most, even though it has the tedious sailing. It was my first experience with the zelda game.

Oh, and I'm amazed you don't understand why someone would be disappointed in Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were complete different games, it's not even similar (if you look at the gameplay).

LOL you probably also think that gameplay is the only thing what matters and graphics are not important.

Husar

08-05-2011, 14:52

Just a friendly reminder to discuss the games here and not other peoples' tastes.
Keep it nice or warnings will be handed out!

Greyblades

08-05-2011, 15:48

a completely inoffensive name

08-05-2011, 21:36

To be honest, I feel like the best Fallout game would be one on the same game engine as Skyrim provided that:

A. The map is actually very small, but concentrated with things to do. Or maybe it is a large area but it isn't so varied, in a way that makes sense given the setting.
B. The number of voice actors went up
C. The number of dialogue choices went up by a large margin.

In my head what I imagine is a Fallout game in the same style as 3 and New Vegas, but the entire game takes place in one vault. The vault is falling apart due to various reasons and you can end up saving the vault, exploiting the problems to become the new leader of the vault, killing everyone in the vault, perhaps being able to communicate with outsiders who you sell the vault and its inhabitants to, or even forcing the leader to make the decision to open the vault and let everyone out.

The vault would be huge but without the problems you get from having a big flat piece of land and having to fill it all up with different NPCs who are not connected to other parts of the map. The same NPCs could be used for multiple or even dozens of side quests that require you to help out vault residents in various ways, which means you get more mileage per character and thus the total number of NPCs goes down reducing that feeling of "oh this voice actor again" because lets be honest, I was getting sick of New Vegas having almost every black character voiced by the same guy.

This isn't the thread for this, but idk some posts in here got me thinking and I just wanted to type all this down as it started flowing. What do you guys think?

EDIT: In response to the OP, ummm the Total War series.

johnhughthom

08-05-2011, 22:00

I was getting sick of New Vegas having almost every black character voiced by the same guy.

This bugged me with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, very jarring hearing the same voices again and again. I've been playing LA Noire and looking through the manual it has 4 pages of voice actors. Now I know Bethesda probably don't have Rockstar's budget, but it makes a huge difference to the immersion not hearing the same voice for different NPCs.

As for your main point, I agree, I've never understood why characters are rarely used for more than one mission in RPGs.

Koga No Goshi

08-06-2011, 06:22

Are you serious? Are those the reasons? Sorry, but your arguments are laughable.

About the NPC's, are you really bothered by the fact that they have 2-3 dialogue options? Did you always read them in Morrowing, because in Morrowind they werealso always the same, no mather who you talked to. Heck just as commoners were useless in Oblivion they were in Morrowind. You are annoyed by the fact that Oblivion has 8 voice actors, well do you prefer Morrowind's choice? No voices, just reading it? AFAIK that's an improvement even if it's a little.

Morrowind also has the feature that a text would pop up without actually reading the book.

Morrowind is not Cyrodiil, so of course there are differences in how the people behave. And I did not really feel the presence of the politics.

And yeah sure, the followers of Dagoth Ur were no crazy psychopathic cult worshippers. :rolleyes:

Sure there were cons, but also pros in comparison with Morrowind. I was also annoyed by the Bandits in glass armor. A pro for me was the combat system, it still isn't perfect but at least better than the Morrowind BS.

By the way, have you ever thought about that when you get older, you don't like the series anymore? At least for me a perfect example for that is Pokemon. Crystal stays the best for, as it was my first. Still Black and White are so much better, but I didn't enjoyed them as much as Crystal. And no Pokemon is not for children alone.

I think that everyone has the feeling: It was better in the past. Even though they aren't but that's how you experience it. Another example: The Windwaker is the zelda game I enjoyed the most, even though it has the tedious sailing. It was my first experience with the zelda game.

Oh, and I'm amazed you don't understand why someone would be disappointed in Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were complete different games, it's not even similar (if you look at the gameplay).

LOL you probably also think that gameplay is the only thing what matters and graphics are not important.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think gameplay is more important and trump graphics in importance for a game, especially an immersive sandbox RPG.

I think you'll find that the summary I gave on why Morrowind -> Oblivion was a jump off a cliff is not at all rare among the people who actually played both games in order, a quick visit to the Bethesda forums or any site that discusses RPG games will yield you plenty of people who feel exactly the same way.

From what I can tell in your post, especially the fact that you "LOL" at the idea of someone holding gameplay over graphics, you are the type of gamer Oblivion was made for. It was made to look pretty and be graphically impressive and.... that's it. And it attracted a lot of people who didn't touch Elder Scrolls before with that emphasis. That doesn't mean it was a good thing or that Oblivion was true to the series it came from.

Koga No Goshi

08-06-2011, 06:35

This bugged me with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, very jarring hearing the same voices again and again. I've been playing LA Noire and looking through the manual it has 4 pages of voice actors. Now I know Bethesda probably don't have Rockstar's budget, but it makes a huge difference to the immersion not hearing the same voice for different NPCs.

As for your main point, I agree, I've never understood why characters are rarely used for more than one mission in RPGs.

It seems that a common thread between both Oblivion and Fallout 3 (both made by Bethesda) is incredibly limited voiceacting.

I agree that if they're going to bother putting it in as full voiceover, they should at least bother to vary the voices enough that you don't feel like you're talking to the same 6-8 NPC's for the entire game.

Koga No Goshi

08-06-2011, 06:39

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2011, 07:56

And how come Total War left ya? :) Same answer as the first guy?

It was the diplomatic AI and the units to be honest. MTW seemed so simple in the selection of units, it was easy to construct balanced armies. RTW and M2TW kicked up the selection a lot but it wasn't balanced. Archers became useless to the very high level knights and the AI spammed armies of one type of unit. It really should have been simplified because the AI was never going to be at the level needed for it to understand whether archers or crossbows were more useful in a certain situation.

Also the emphasis on a new engine seemed annoying to me. This is a game about massive armies and they want to max out the details on every single foot soldier. I really did not care for the transition to the empire/napoleon engine. I felt that the M2TW engine was just fine in it's graphics and could be improved upon in more iterations to be more than adequate for today's market. Look at EB's units in their subforum, very beautiful.

They had a really good opportunity to keep the RTW/M2TW engine, improve the graphics a bit but more importantly concentrate on making a solid AI. Instead they took the extra time given for empire by making a brand new engine that couldn't run on 60% of people's computers.

It just overall seemed obvious they were going in a bad direction. Empire was my last TW game, only played it for 6 hours.

Drunk Clown

08-06-2011, 09:52

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think gameplay is more important and trump graphics in importance for a game, especially an immersive sandbox RPG.

I think you'll find that the summary I gave on why Morrowind -> Oblivion was a jump off a cliff is not at all rare among the people who actually played both games in order, a quick visit to the Bethesda forums or any site that discusses RPG games will yield you plenty of people who feel exactly the same way.

From what I can tell in your post, especially the fact that you "LOL" at the idea of someone holding gameplay over graphics, you are the type of gamer Oblivion was made for. It was made to look pretty and be graphically impressive and.... that's it. And it attracted a lot of people who didn't touch Elder Scrolls before with that emphasis. That doesn't mean it was a good thing or that Oblivion was true to the series it came from.

As a matter of fact, I also think Morrowind was better than Oblivion. That said, I still think Oblivion is a great game.
But today, I couldn't go back to Morrowind, it feels outdated and the combat system makes it hard for me to enjoy. When I played it for the first time I wasn't bothered by it.

I don't get it why you find Oblivion so much easier, I played Morrowind a lot, but never found myself wondering what to do with this one quest. I guess it felt the same for me as Oblivion; it was clear for me what to do.

So in conclusion, don't get me wrong. I too think Morrowind was better, but my reasons are the fact that Oblivion was shorter, had less skills and the bandits in glass armor. The annoyances in Morrowind which I notice now do not matter, as I compare the first experience with Morrowind with the first experience with Oblivion. If I would do that, it wouldn't be fair as Morrowind is older and thus has an outdated fighting system and it's exploitable in a lot of ways.

Oblivion does the same as Morrowind, too bad Oblivion was shorter and had some problems. A game series leaves me when they decide to make an entirely new way of playing the game; this was not the case for Oblivion and there is no reason you shouldn't try Skyrim as the series has yet to leave his gameplay.

Yes, I LOL every time a gamer says that the graphics aren't important and gameplay is the only thing that matters, because let's say for example this.
You see a new screenshot of a new game, it's the first impression. Will you be impressed if it looks butt ugly in comparison to today's standard? No.
If it was ugly, you probably wouldn't even look at the game again, as it seems inferior to what other producers (with nice graphics) have to offer.

Pretty cut and dry, right? Dissenters will try to cite the success of low-budget indie titles in the face of this argument, but there's a distinct difference between creating an artistic style to suit your means and simply failing to produce triple-A graphics. High-visibility developers no longer have the luxury of creating anything less than stunning visuals, and stylized titles from their studios are generally diversionary releases at best.
When a company's looking for "the best sense of immersion you can get," they can't set the hook without a gift-wrapped presentation. So we sure as hell know that Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will be nothing short of breathtaking.

Graphic

08-06-2011, 10:14

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion. I played both of them, and yes, Morrowind had some more depth here and there but more bugs as well. Oblivion had fun quests (Sheogorath, Dark Brotherhood), great graphics and the scenery was very plausible (unlike Morrowind). Most of the people that say Morrowind was far better just say that to look wise and old, I can't stand that.

I slightly prefer Oblivion too, but I don't see how "plausible" scenery is a plus in a fantasy game. Thats one area where Morrowind definitely outclasses Oblivion; the world was actually fantastical as opposed to Oblivion's generic "medieval Earth Europe but with monsters and fireballs" that every single other fantasy game does.

The series that left me was Call of Duty. The first one (along with its expansion United Offensive) is my favorite multiplayer FPS of all-time. It was as hardcore as Counter-Strike but with better graphics and an overall better "feel." Very high recoil, no hit markers, no one shows up on your radar, no unlocks, no killstreak rewards, no claymores. None of that junk. You pick a weapon, and you shoot people with it. Thats the only way you got kills.

Since then what they've done is consciously make it the most noob friendly game series in existence. They've done this for business reasons and it was a brilliant decision from that standpoint. They took the "everybody's a winner!" concept from the self esteem movement and transplanted it video games. A game that puts in so many helping hands to give even the slowest-reflexed, slow-witted players a chance to go 30-2 without ever moving the entire game is naturally going to sell like hot cakes.

Fragony

08-06-2011, 10:43

johnhughthom

08-06-2011, 11:28

It seems that a common thread between both Oblivion and Fallout 3 (both made by Bethesda) is incredibly limited voiceacting.

I agree that if they're going to bother putting it in as full voiceover, they should at least bother to vary the voices enough that you don't feel like you're talking to the same 6-8 NPC's for the entire game.

I think the reason why for both is clear, Oblivion had Sean Bean and the Star Trek guy, Fallout 3 had Liam Neeson. That was probably 90% of their voice over budget spent before they had really begun.

My actual game series would be Total War, my reasons similar to ACIN. I bought Shogun 2 and tried the series again, then set it down when I realised elevation doesn't give archers extended range, yet another simplification while prettiness is improved. It probably seems like a small reason to stop playing a game, but it was more like the straw that broke the camels back after pathetic AI game after game. I'm told the AI is better in Shogun, I don't care, the small detail of archer's range shows CA still focus on little other than graphics. It was a last chance purchase for me, Napoleon was the only Total War game I didn't buy, Shogun 2 will be the last I do.

Greyblades

08-06-2011, 16:09

My favorite series are the Thief games. Thief is the best game ever, and I wasn't exactly pleased with Thief 2 because it wasn't as scary. It grew on me, and I even actually started apreciating it, which took me years to come to terms with. I had to admit Thief 2 was good in it's own way and certainly not the crime against humanity I initially took it for. I Thief fans would shame the Fallout-community when it comes to rigidness. But than came Thief 3 and I will never be able to not hate that utter pile of crap. How could they do that to me, why would they do that to me, what did I do wrong?

I'm not even excited that Thief 4 is in development

To each his own, but I would recomend going back to it so you can play a level called "the cradle", some websites claim it's one of the scariest levels in gaming history but al I know is it was one of the games that freaked me out enough to stop playing for a while. I think it might be worth suffering through the game to get to that level.

Monk

08-06-2011, 16:51

Dragon age. I kinda liked 2 but it didnt have the replayability of origins and I hated the plot, Nothing you did ever felt like it changed anything, god help you if you want to save anyone, in the first one you could even save the primary villian if you so chose and you influence who gains the thrones of two kingdoms. The second one you couldn't even save your mother and the main villian tries to kill you even if you do your utmost to side with her, railroad much?

It's actually worse than you're making it sound.

I liked 2 in a number of ways. Combat was fun (minus magical enemy spawning) and the skill/talent system was really cool to experiment with. 2 really started to falter in the later half of the second act, where things began to literally just fall apart. The plot starts to feel incredibly disjointed, two huge out of the blue boss fights (ones you cannot avoid no matter how you play) later and BOOM end of game. Dragon age 2 feels like a game that ran out of time in development. This wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't abandoned all the important ties it had with Origins and gone out of their way to make the experience feel completely different. The ugly as sin environments didn't help either.

Bioware looks like they are going down the drain honestly. Hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling ME3 is going to be their last hurrah.

bought Shogun 2 and tried the series again, then set it down when I realised elevation doesn't give archers extended range, yet another simplification while prettiness is improved

To be honest I don't believe that was done for the purposes of simplification. Shogun 2 runs on a modified ETW/NTW engine, which was designed for a much different kind of game. It seems more like limitation in that regard than anything else. :shrug:

johnhughthom

08-06-2011, 18:09

To be honest I don't believe that was done for the purposes of simplification. Shogun 2 runs on a modified ETW/NTW engine, which was designed for a much different kind of game. It seems more like limitation in that regard than anything else. :shrug:

The reason why isn't really that important, it's still a pretty major tactical advantage made impossible. CA made the engine then decided to use it for a game with a totally different type of warfare.

Drunk Clown

08-06-2011, 18:42

Total war has never been a star in tactics IMO. I wish it would, though.

Fragony

08-07-2011, 01:36

To each his own, but I would recomend going back to it so you can play a level called "the cradle", some websites claim it's one of the scariest levels in gaming history but al I know is it was one of the games that freaked me out enough to stop playing for a while. I think it might be worth suffering through the game to get to that level.

That level is awesome.The rest isn't. In terms of sheer terror it has nothing on the notorious 'Return to the Cathedral' from the first Thief, abandoned the game for months, tried a few times but I just couldn't go there. You know something is wrong when a building let's out a sigh when you open the door. 'The Inverted Manse' is a fanmission that is almost as bad but never feels like you are in a truly evil place.

Major Robert Dump

08-07-2011, 14:49

Freedom Force

The original was fun and the character sidekick editor was totally sweet and the soundtrack was epic, but Freedom Force vs The Third Reich was just oo unbelievable. I mean, racially-insulting super heroes who can fly and throw cars and be invisible is believable, but bringing Nazi supervillains into it is just not factual at all.

I would discuss more, but there are too many gamer snobs here and I don't want to get teh trollz

Abokasee

08-08-2011, 11:11

C&C - Here are my reactions to each game:
Tiberian Dawn: WOAH, WOW THIS IS ODD... OH GOD I'M NOT USED TO TRAINING ONE GUY AT A TIME.
Red Alert: Still one guy at a time? Well at least it doesnt feel quite as clunky OH****IMGETTINGTANKRUSHEASEASHDAHSAHFAAHFSDFFGFGHH
Tiberian Sun: (First one I played) ... ... ... Oh... ... my... god... this is... just wow...
Firestorm: I approve of these new units! Especially you Juggernaught!
Emperor Battle for Dune: This Track Sums up everything (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOxuQBe_cL8) - until I went onto online play, or rather couldnt get onto online play...
Red Arlert 2: Wow this is great! (Play online): Am I the only soviet player here?... OH GOD THATS ALOT OF IFV'S AND ROCKETEERS
Yuri's Revenge: Sweet a new faction! Plays pretty weird though... yeah snipers just destroyed my economy again. (Play online): Ok lets join as Yur... I just got kicked from the game... I guess Gatling Turrets are "Imba" against Rocketeer and IFV spam.
C&C Generals: Meh. Not good, not bad, just fine... where's my sidebar? Wait I'm playing WC3 now? OK...
Zero Hour: Sweet Jesus this is great! Its not C&C but its great!
Zero Hour... with mods: HONOURABRE DISPRAY
C&C 3: Ok this is pretty neat. Can't help but feel most of this could be acommplished by a high-end Zero-Hour modder... where the **** are my Titan Walkers and Wolverines! No Cyborgs? Oh okay they actually listened to the original plot on that part. Why does my multi-trillion dollar cult have to use Militia? I want my cool ass armoured dudes back.
Kanes Wrath: OK my Titans and Wolverines are back and so are my Cyborgs this is pretty cool. Oh and the armour is too... they still suck though. Oh whats this RA3 Beta test.
RA3 Beta: Ok this aint actually to bad... very goofy but pretty dam fun... wait they couldn't even be bothered to re-do unit voices?
(SKIP A FEW)
C&C4 Previews: No base building? Extremely goofy units? SHAMFUR DISPRAY.

Kekvit Irae

08-08-2011, 13:42

Total War - Sometimes I'll pop my head back into a game of Empire, but honestly... I hated Shogun 2. There was something about it that didn't click with me.

The Elder Scrolls - Let me get this out there: I HATED MORROWIND. I hated the pre-built "dungeons." I hated how they turned high/wood/dark elves into Amy Winehouse (too soon?). I hated those damn cliff racers. Oblivion redeemed itself only because it had much better modding potential.

World of Warcraft - Patch 4.2. Anyone who plays WoW will know why I canceled my subscription.

Bioshock - The original Bioshock was a true masterpiece; a worthy successor to System Shock 2. Bioshock 2 was an insult to the legacy. Exact same plot. Exact same gameplay. Exact same game. Multiplayer was fun, but it didn't erase the foul taste out of my mouth.

Deus Ex - There was no "Invisible War." It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream.

And the worst offender: Dragon Age - Dragon Age: Origins and Awakening were the shining jewels in modern RPGs. Sure, they had their flaws, but they were so engaging and fun that it didn't matter. Then came Dragon Age II. I can forgive the new combat system. I can forgive the newbie-mode changes to talents and the removal of skills. I can even forgive the retcons and the fact you are a participant rather than a leader. What I cant forgive is my favorite character from Awakening doing something so batguano insane in the final act. SERIOUSLY, ANDERS? SERIOUSLY?!

Crazed Rabbit

08-09-2011, 01:37

Total War - Rome went from the strategy and tactics of MTW to the mass appeal of shiny graphics and easy gameplay. In my foolishness, believing CA's hype, I bought ETW on release, like a fool. I'm not going to buy another one of their games.

Also, Call of Duty. I played the original, where you didn't have a little number pop up in the middle of the screen for killing someone.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

08-09-2011, 02:57

Also, Call of Duty. I played the original, where you didn't have a little number pop up in the middle of the screen for killing someone.

CR

Call of duty 2 and to a lesser extent 3, were really solid games. From 4 and beyond, the series became about measuring yourself and showing off then about the fun of it.

Kekvit Irae

08-09-2011, 03:46

Call of duty 2 and to a lesser extent 3, were really solid games. From 4 and beyond, the series became about measuring yourself and showing off then about the fun of it.

I wouldn't exactly say that CoD3 is a "really solid game," but that's your own subjective opinion. Personally, I believe it was simply way to get a 360 launch title out the door. Regardless, I enjoyed the Polish tank missions.

And as for CoD4 and higher... Bulletstorm said it better than anyone else could. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbTtsezso4Q) (may or may not contain offensive language)

Montmorency

08-09-2011, 05:06

Deus Ex - There was no "Invisible War." It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream.

Invisible War was a good game and you cannot prove otherwise.

a completely inoffensive name

08-09-2011, 05:44

I wouldn't exactly say that CoD3 is a "really solid game," but that's your own subjective opinion. Personally, I believe it was simply way to get a 360 launch title out the door. Regardless, I enjoyed the Polish tank missions.

And as for CoD4 and higher... Bulletstorm said it better than anyone else could. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbTtsezso4Q) (may or may not contain offensive language)

I felt that CoD 3 was very, very similar to CoD 2, idk what wouldn't make it a solid game. I remember playing a lot of CoD 2 and 3 and I remember a few multiplayer maps from CoD 3 that I still think were the funnest I have ever played.

phantom

08-11-2011, 12:44

Total War Series.

Shogun: Awesome! (http://supertemporal.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/ran20-hd.jpg)
Medieval: Awesome! (http://thecia.com.au/reviews/k/images/kingdom-of-heaven-9.jpg)
Rome: Terrible but at least it could be modded - and were you not entertained? (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ajwz1FVsQSE/TSy0BvneYmI/AAAAAAAADSA/mBWHRAS5oHE/s1600/gladiator_image.jpg)
Medieval2: Puerile (http://www.beaniessite.com/dabeanette2/shrekCast.jpg)
Empire/Napoleon/Shogun2: Didn't buy as looks like more of the same, can't be modded and is obviously geared towards selling downloadable content to the kiddies that now play these games.

Total War is a game series in decline. The CA ran out of ideas long ago and now they're just rehashing the same tired old :daisy:. As usual the fanboys (or their parents) will run out and buy it. It's a real waste of something which had so much potential.

Drunk Clown

08-11-2011, 13:30

As usual the fanboys (or their parents) will run out and buy it.

LOL?

lars573

08-11-2011, 18:26

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.
I'm 30 and I feel that Oblivion was FAR superior to Morrowind. I enjoyed Morrowind in it's time but it had SEVERE flaws that irritated me to no end. Flaws that were all fixed in Oblivion. Sure you can get all through Oblivion in 35 hours compared to a 60 or 70 hour Morrowind game. But 30 of those hours in Morrowind were walking to and from your destination. As for the leveled loot and enemies, Morrowind was the only ES game that didn't have a heavy handed level keying system. Also the main quest in Morrowind was you fighting crazy cultists and Liche's (who are super powerfule necromancers). They just couldn't show them in the same way due to hardware limits. Morrowind also had about the same amount of dialogue choices with NPC's. If there were more it was 1 or 2. Really the fact that all dialogue in Oblivion is spoken it why you notice how generic it is.

Total War Series.

Shogun: Interesting, but the tactical battles are impossible crap to actually play.
Medieval: More of the same. But hey I can pimp out my daughters and burn fools at the stake.
Rome: Now this is what I've been wanting. Battles that are actually playable! Plus crucifixion.
Medieval2: Finally a Medieval game that's playable all around. And I can own Popes while pimping my daughters
Empire: Best game so far. Getting an economy pumping is no longer a matter of luck, cheating, and owning 30+ provinces.
Napoleon: More of empire
Fixed.

Vladimir

08-12-2011, 14:16

Why all the hate for M2:TW? The mods are excellent and despite the flaws with archery I found it much more enjoyable than S2 is.

phantom

08-13-2011, 12:25

Fixed.
Your the first person I have seen complaining that the 'tactical battles' in the first two games are impossible to play. Usually the consensus is that the first game had the best tactical battles but not the greatest graphics. Might I suggest that its more a question of your inability to play the battles in the first two games rather than something lacking in the battles themselves? The battles in rome and medieval 2 were poor and the games themselves were obviously aimed children.

aimlesswanderer

08-13-2011, 13:33

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

- Lords of the Realm: 1 and 2 both excellent, and I still play 2 occasionally. But 3? :daisy:, a total shocker - made no sense, horrible graphics, just sooooooo baaaad.

- MOO: 1 good, 2 great, 3 :daisy:. A friend described the game as something "which plays itself".

Monk

08-14-2011, 02:38

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

I've heard a lot of people compare 5 to 3 in the regards that.. it's solid mechanically there's just nothing there. I remember getting so hyped on that game and buying it day one. Played it for about 5 hours and then never played it again, just not sure what went wrong.

~:( It was all together unenjoyable, not to mention their DLC scheme has released about 7 insanely overprized faction packs. There's all together very little that sets them apart from the base civs, maybe a unit or two here and there..

aimlesswanderer

08-14-2011, 05:17

I've heard a lot of people compare 5 to 3 in the regards that.. it's solid mechanically there's just nothing there. I remember getting so hyped on that game and buying it day one. Played it for about 5 hours and then never played it again, just not sure what went wrong.

~:( It was all together unenjoyable, not to mention their DLC scheme has released about 7 insanely overprized faction packs. There's all together very little that sets them apart from the base civs, maybe a unit or two here and there..

Ah, there must have been a reason I don't really remember 3! Yes, 5, while it runs smoothly, is just missing something, that spark, and is, I am afraid, boring. Silly me, I bought the DLCs when I bought 5, and that doesn't seem like a good buy now!

drone

08-15-2011, 02:42

- MOO: 1 good, 2 great, 3 :daisy:. A friend described the game as something "which plays itself".
:laugh4: I bought MoO3, but then I realized I already had a job. Such a shame, MoO2 was incredible, probably the most hours spent out of my entire game collection.

lars573

08-18-2011, 18:02

Your the first person I have seen complaining that the 'tactical battles' in the first two games are impossible to play. Usually the consensus is that the first game had the best tactical battles but not the greatest graphics. Might I suggest that its more a question of your inability to play the battles in the first two games rather than something lacking in the battles themselves? The battles in rome and medieval 2 were poor and the games themselves were obviously aimed children.
Your wrong. The controls are horrible, I've yet to find a way to adjust them to something resembling usefulness. And the camera doesn't help. All of which were fixed from Rome onwards. Really my enjoyment of STW increased immensely once I realized I didn't have to plod through those awful battles if I didn't want too.

TinCow

08-18-2011, 18:13

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

I agree. I do not think there has been a single game series that has sucked up as much time as Civ (counted as Civ 1, Civ 2, SMAC, Civ 3, Civ 4, Civ 5). Yet, Civ 5 only got about two weeks of playtime out of me before I put it down, and I haven't touched it again since. I haven't abandoned the series though. Civ 4 was nowhere near as strong at release as it was after two expansion packs. I'll give Civ 5 some time to mature and then I'll give it another try. I'll also buy whatever comes next, even if Civ 5 remains disappointed. After all, Civ 3 was followed by Civ 4. Hopefully we'll get SMAC 2 though. I was kind of fond of SMAC (http://apolyton.net/local_links/links/c-faction-175/1575) many, many years ago.

Prussian to the Iron

08-18-2011, 19:03

I could get into the massive butthurt argument about Total War and Oblivion vs. Morrowind, but I'll stay out of that and remain on-topic.

I'm done with CoD. I think my first one was Finest Hour, which was awesome (that opening...wow.), and Call of Duty 3 was pretty fun as well (never played MP for either, PS2). Call of Duty 4 was revolutionary and had the best graphics of its time (and lots of new games don't even match the same graphic level), and was my introduction to FPS multiplayer (though I must admit that, at the time, I sucked at it. Hard.). World at War, though everyone talks about how bad it was, I absolutely loved. Kept a similar vibe from MW1, but the focus was shifted more to semi-auto and bolt-action (if that game had been released now, I would destroy everything with the semi's and bolt-actions). Very fun for me, especially Nazi Zombies, playing splitscreen with my friends, and campaign.

MW2 was ok. It was fun for a while, but it was quintessentially the same thing as MW1 and WaW. Just with new weapons and cheaper exploits, a huge amount of quickscoping (1-shot kill from any range....), very unbalanced weapons, and ridiculous killstreaks.

Black Ops I absolutely hate. I sometimes play with my best friend online, just because I don't want to play Bad Company 2 by myself. It's a horrendous game. The graphics were actually scaled back from MW2 (which, IMO, had worse graphics than MW1), the guns were EXTREMELY unbalanced (there's a reason almost everyone uses the same guns. half the guns have no recoil, half have extremely high recoil and no damage boost to compensate for it), kill streaks were still pretty annoying but not as bad as MW2. Just incredibly unrealistic. Freakin hate the game.

MW3 is the same exact thing as MW2, with a few different guns and attachments to keep the 12 year olds happy.

I can't bring myself to buy such an atrocity of a game, such a mockery of the once-prestigious title "Call of Duty".

Drunk Clown

08-18-2011, 19:17

Just incredibly unrealistic.

CoD is known for its extremely realistic combat.

Prussian to the Iron

08-18-2011, 19:22

CoD is known for its extremely realistic combat.

Oh of course, just as much as Medieval 2 and Rome TW are known for ending up with historically accurate borders.

Drunk Clown

08-18-2011, 21:33

Oh of course, just as much as Medieval 2 and Rome TW are known for ending up with historically accurate borders.
Indeed.

rasoforos

08-23-2011, 08:31

Total War - Medieval and Shogun were fantastic, catering for a small number of people who liked substance over shiny things. Rome was an anjoyable Arcade Game, something to play while listening to pop music :P. Medieval 2 was unplayable and it stayed that way ever since...

Fallout. I dont think Fallout3 was a bad game. It was a fine post apocalyptic game. But it wasnt Fallout (during my latest replay of fallout 2 I played a married female lesbian character who sold her spouse to slavery....try to do that with F3...)

Sarmatian

08-23-2011, 12:35

I agree. I do not think there has been a single game series that has sucked up as much time as Civ (counted as Civ 1, Civ 2, SMAC, Civ 3, Civ 4, Civ 5). Yet, Civ 5 only got about two weeks of playtime out of me before I put it down, and I haven't touched it again since. I haven't abandoned the series though. Civ 4 was nowhere near as strong at release as it was after two expansion packs. I'll give Civ 5 some time to mature and then I'll give it another try. I'll also buy whatever comes next, even if Civ 5 remains disappointed. After all, Civ 3 was followed by Civ 4. Hopefully we'll get SMAC 2 though. I was kind of fond of SMAC (http://apolyton.net/local_links/links/c-faction-175/1575) many, many years ago.

If you haven't tried Rise of Mankind - a New Dawn mod for Civ IV, I'd strongly advise it. It's practically another expansion, probably offers more new features than Warlords and BtS combined. I've just tried it, and even though it's a steep learning curve even for experienced Civ IV players, I'm having a blast currently.

CrossLOPER

08-23-2011, 16:27

My friends (IRL and online) sometimes point out that I don't like anything and that I always find tiny things to criticize. I don't know how to respond to that other than by pointing at the endless examples I see and hoping that they could at least understand my point.

Fallout - I actually got into this series REALLY late, but I played the first two first. I liked Fallout and thought that Fallout 2 was great and had a lot of tiny things to it that shattered any tiny shred of monotony. Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns. It was cool the first few times I threw a grenade under a thing and watched it splatter in slo-mo. It was also cool when I ran halfway across the map to megaton firing a defective sniper rifle at a lady wearing a ruined mattress or fighting a desperate struggle against a huge thing with a missile launcher while all I had was a pipe. But that was it. The developers had a shattered planet that they could remake any way they wanted and all they did was make a handful of villages and endless sewer levels.

EDIT: I remember someone on the Bethesda forums saying that Fallout 3 is not Fallout, but rather Bethesda's Post Apocalyptic Adventure. The post was deleted after having about 1 billion replies, but it was true. To be honest, Fallout 3 appeared to be a game where the developers were trying to copy the more well known aspects of Fallout and failed. I don't think any of them ever played either of the original Fallout games.

Elder Scrolls - I played Arena first before moving on to Daggerfall. I played Morrowind and was treated to a unique feeling every time I moved on to another area. The blasted ashlands, the impossible Telvanni structures, the delicate dealings with tribes, raiding daedric ruins, rebuilding the shrine of a god, FINDING A STAFF LOCATED ON THE BODY OF A LOST PRIEST IN A MOUNTAIN RANGE. I still remember the alien howling I heard just before I went to sleep under the stars. Each race had unique voices and you heard the dispositions in the delivery. There were quests that you had no choice but to complete even though you had no wish to do so. Don't get me started on the expansions. Oblivion... It felt plastic. To me, the graphics were worse. It felt as if everything was made from a single template. I saw little imagination in the level design. I had to force myself to get through to the end, while I was left breathless the moment my character at the time finished the last quest. I actually managed to track down Battlespire and Redguard a few years ago. Battlespire was a buggy mess, but it required thinking. You had to approach each fight carefully and there was a good chance you would have to create a new character a couple of times before you had a viable one. Redguard had the skills and stats taken out, but it replaced them with character depth and a good storyline.

EDIT: I feel sorry for the developers. At first I cursed them for violating a good series, but now I think differently. I remember a live Skyrim demo being played before an audience released on youtube not too long ago. The representative (maybe Todd Howard himself) was going through a snowy mountain range. My first thought was that someone accidentally slipped in Oblivion and Todd was near Bruma. I was distracted from this by the howling of the audience. They were yelling at nothing. Then 2 wolves happened to be in the middle of the path. Todd was about to walk around them when the crowd started their howling again. "It's just a wolf!" Todd protested. Alas, the crowd wanted blood. Todd obliged. Twas then I noticed that the erratic sword swinging was exactly the same as it was in Oblivion. THE WEAPON HAD NO WEIGHT. Then again, if it did, you would have to employ timing and skill to your swordplay. You would have to THINK for a brief moment. The developers realize that this won't probably won't do and left it out. As for the wolves, they had the same AI as they did in Oblivion. All they did was harmlessly clip into each other while Todd swung away.

Total War - Like many, I think the series peaked around MTW. Rome was awesome, but MTW had all the right elements. Let's not talk about the auto-resolve and the absurd reinforcement functions. Those were always horrendous. I got S2TW for free with my processor. Personally, I think it is good and it corrected many of the missteps. However, it just lacks the spark of MTW.

EDIT: Also, I can never shake the feeling that I have played this game before.

Age of Empires - Purging a series built on historical foundations of any realism and replacing it with an absurd storyline because you didn't want to offend someone is questionable. YOU COULD HAVE MADE A GAME WHERE THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE THE CONFEDERACY WON. YOU WOULD HAVE MADE RECORD SALES. You didn't HAVE to have slaves. You could have replaced them with "frontier labor" or something like that. It would have been more realistic than having DRAGOONS.

Stronghold - "Hey, let's take all the charm and epic historical influence and use the most horrendous voice acting ever. Also, release the pre-beta version of the game." OK, to be fair, I like the direction they were going with adding in estates so that you could deny the enemy castle resources, but why would you give me a unit that could ferry itself across the water WHEN THERE IS NO SCENARIO THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO DO SO?

Painkiller - No innovation. At all. It is the exact same game every time and somehow each iteration is less optimized than the last.

EDIT: Honorable mention:

Thief - Deadly Shadows veered a bit, but it kept the core elements in the game. The Cradle brought back memories of The Haunted Cathedral from the original game, though that level still reigns supreme. I can live without rope arrows and, to be honest, the climbing gloves seem more realistic. I find myself looking forward to Th4if, despite the fact that the very first marketing for the game is about the worst I have ever seen. Th4if? Well, at least you are tipping your hats to the fact that this is indeed the fourth installment. If Human Revolution turns out OK, then I will likely pre-order Th4if the day it is available.

Deus Ex - This one is a little bit troublesome because core elements WERE taken out in Invisible War. The skill system and the exploration reward system that went with it were gone. I was not rewarded for exploring. It was silly. The universal ammunition thing was absurd as well. However, I can imagine myself playing the game again and indeed, I am going to watch a live streaming of Human Revolution. If it looks fun, I'll get it. I am not at all bothered by the Portal quality graphics. In fact, I hope that means they spent time on the actual game. I was troubled when I saw a on youtube a guy playing a leaked version of the game a couple of months back. The first twenty minutes of the game appear to require minimal input from the player.

In the first game, you were thrown into a covert mission where you had to infiltrate THE RUINS OF LADY LIBERTY and capture a terrorist. AND HE SURRENDERED. The second one was a little bit slower in starting up, but as soon as you learned how to use your inventory, BOOM! Spooky guys in hoods started shooting up security and you had to haul it.

Drunk Clown

08-23-2011, 16:58

I don't think any of them ever played either of the original Fallout games.
Sure.

To me, the graphics were worse
Yeah, just like with GTA. San Andreas looked way better than GTA IV.

I saw little imagination in the level design.
Area around Ald'rhun and the whole area around the ghost wall was great. I was like: "Yeah give me more desert, can't get enough of it"

CrossLOPER

08-23-2011, 17:48

I'll assume that is all sarcasm, and despite the tone, I'll address these.

Sure.
WHO is my character. WHAT would they do if the specter of the resurgence of the Enclave was not on the horizon? Would they be a porn star? A boxer? If their car was stolen, would they screw the thief so hard that their head exploded? Does their charisma have an effect on anything besides the deals at the market? I don't know because I don't get the chance to do any of these things. I do get to make boom.

Yeah, just like with GTA. San Andreas looked way better than GTA IV. I never played either, but you seemed to have missed the point.

Medieval paintings are, by all accounts, horrid. They lack perspective, they are difficult to follow and the anachronisms are glaring. However, I personally find charm in them. Yes, Morrowind was gritty in many places, but I would hardly expect a wasteland to be colorful. There were fields and marshes and beaches and all of them could be told apart from one another. In Oblivion, there was the grassy plain/forest template, and it just froze over when it got too far north.

Area around Ald'rhun and the whole area around the ghost wall was great. I was like: "Yeah give me more desert, can't get enough of it"
Forgetting that the area around the Ghost Gate was tainted by Dagoth Ur's corruption and looking around the "pure" areas, the southeast and the southwest of Vvardenfell where swamps/marches, the interior was a mountain range, the interior had numerous grassy fields, Dagon Fel was a dead volcano... The caves were often more than caves. Many were grottos that had unique features and led to structures not accessible from the surface. They were not just holes filled with HDR bloom. Ald'rhun, since you mentioned it, was a town built from the husks of huge crustaceans. Looking at other towns, Gnisis was carved into the side of a mountain. The Telvanni towns were so weird and unique that I still remember them. Even if you didn't lose yourself in the game to find any of this remotely interesting, it's still more imaginative than the generic western European castle model used for every single fort. Bruma is unique in that the Nordic architecture was prominent and Cloud Ruler Temple itself was a unique spot. No where else in Oblivion was any of this present.

EDIT: VIVEC. THAT is a city. It was so huge, it had its own transportation system. Speaking of which, Silt Striders! Propylon Indexes! At least teleportation made sense!

a completely inoffensive name

08-25-2011, 11:05

I'll assume that is all sarcasm, and despite the tone, I'll address these.

WHO is my character. WHAT would they do if the specter of the resurgence of the Enclave was not on the horizon? Would they be a porn star? A boxer? If their car was stolen, would they screw the thief so hard that their head exploded? Does their charisma have an effect on anything besides the deals at the market? I don't know because I don't get the chance to do any of these things. I do get to make boom.

You don't know what the purpose of F3 was. After F2, all the bad stuff happened financially to Black Isle and Interplay and the Fallout series looked like it was going to disappear forever for a moment. Bethesda picked it up but didn't know how well the series would go over after a 10 year hiatus. Long periods of no news tend to make people very pessimistic and overly critical since they have been "waiting" longer. (lol Duke Nukem wasn't an average game instead it was IT DIDN'T EVEN CURE MY CANCER IT WAS SO BAD)

So Bethesda bought the IP and used F3 to test the waters. They did do their research on F1 and F2 but what some people don't comprehend is that a first person 3D sandbox is going to be a lot more limited in the amount of choices due to the engine's structure than a very graphically simple 2D top down scroller. For the most part the kind of 2D scroller that F1 and F2 is based upon makes it real easy to add a ton of complexity because it takes less effort to change simpler sprites than it is to change an entire 3D town like Megaton. The time between when F1 came out and when F2 came out was 1 year. F1 came out in 1997 and F2 came out in 1998. Modern 3D RPG's take a lot more time even to make it decent. KOTOR 2 and Dragon Age 2 shows how crappy and hollow a modern RPG is when only given 13-15 months to make, which is more time than it took to make the complex beast that is F2.

The technical differences between presenting a large area from a 2D top down and a 3D first person also makes a huge difference in how far you can make changes to the surrounding environment or even in how big the environment actually seems. What makes this situation even more apparent is that when I read on Reddit posts about F1 and F2, there are always people who say that they are surprised about how small x town is when they get the widescreen patch for computers that run at insanely high resolutions allowing the player to see a much larger square of the map from top down than normally. Areas suddenly go from winding buildings everywhere to a surprisingly close grid like pattern of 4 buildings by 5 buildings when you see the whole town.

The fact is that the Oblivion engine isn't the F1 and F2 engine and people complain about the former not providing the same level of choice as the latter as if the Oblivion engine was designed to be an ever encompassing complex branching tracking engine for Fallout.

This is all why I said earlier in this thread that the next Fallout should be within a much smaller area, not a huge sandbox in the same style as F3 or New Vegas. Make the NPC's serve more uses for more quests instead of being throwaway one time NPCs used to send you to another point on the map.

As for not following the lore, Bethesda made the decision that since they did indeed own the IP that they were entitled to change the lore as they seemed fit. But they took a deliberate policy of trying to maintain the original material as much as they could in order to keep it the Fallout everyone would recognize. It's why they placed F3 in Washington D.C. far away from the events or characters of either F1 and F2, because they were testing to see if people would respond before they went about dictating what familiar characters would do.

In short, people complain about Fallout not being what it once was, but this is sillyness. 2D top down styles have not been the mainstream style of RPG story telling for a while. To expect anything but "Oblivion with guns" was just being unrealistic and ultimately doing the same kind of expectation building that most people did with Duke Nukem.

EDIT: On Chris Avalone's twitter account he says that since F3 the Fallout Bible itself is no longer canon. So invoking the lore from that is pointless.
http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisAvellone/status/101700464676044800

CrossLOPER

08-25-2011, 21:06

You don't know what the purpose of F3 was. After F2, all the bad stuff happened financially to Black Isle and Interplay and the Fallout series looked like it was going to disappear forever for a moment. Bethesda picked it up but didn't know how well the series would go over after a 10 year hiatus. Long periods of no news tend to make people very pessimistic and overly critical since they have been "waiting" longer. (lol Duke Nukem wasn't an average game instead it was IT DIDN'T EVEN CURE MY CANCER IT WAS SO BAD)
That's the problem. It was a full price demo marketed as FALLOUT 3. Point is moot since New Vegas was nearly the exact same thing.

So Bethesda bought the IP and used F3 to test the waters. They did do their research on F1 and F2 but what some people don't comprehend is that a first person 3D sandbox is going to be a lot more limited in the amount of choices due to the engine's structure than a very graphically simple 2D top down scroller. For the most part the kind of 2D scroller that F1 and F2 is based upon makes it real easy to add a ton of complexity because it takes less effort to change simpler sprites than it is to change an entire 3D town like Megaton. The time between when F1 came out and when F2 came out was 1 year. F1 came out in 1997 and F2 came out in 1998. Modern 3D RPG's take a lot more time even to make it decent. KOTOR 2 and Dragon Age 2 shows how crappy and hollow a modern RPG is when only given 13-15 months to make, which is more time than it took to make the complex beast that is F2.
Fallout 1 and 2 were not scrollers. "3D is hard" is not an excuse. Bethesda had all the experience it needed from Oblivion, and didn't use it.

The technical differences between presenting a large area from a 2D top down and a 3D first person also makes a huge difference in how far you can make changes to the surrounding environment or even in how big the environment actually seems. What makes this situation even more apparent is that when I read on Reddit posts about F1 and F2, there are always people who say that they are surprised about how small x town is when they get the widescreen patch for computers that run at insanely high resolutions allowing the player to see a much larger square of the map from top down than normally. Areas suddenly go from winding buildings everywhere to a surprisingly close grid like pattern of 4 buildings by 5 buildings when you see the whole town.
It's not the size, it's the content.

The fact is that the Oblivion engine isn't the F1 and F2 engine and people complain about the former not providing the same level of choice as the latter as if the Oblivion engine was designed to be an ever encompassing complex branching tracking engine for Fallout.

This is all why I said earlier in this thread that the next Fallout should be within a much smaller area, not a huge sandbox in the same style as F3 or New Vegas. Make the NPC's serve more uses for more quests instead of being throwaway one time NPCs used to send you to another point on the map.
I am failing to grasp the point you are trying to make... That 3D sandboxes are hard to program? Yes, it is an endeavor, but it is not an excuse to release an empty crater of a game.

As for not following the lore, Bethesda made the decision that since they did indeed own the IP that they were entitled to change the lore as they seemed fit. But they took a deliberate policy of trying to maintain the original material as much as they could in order to keep it the Fallout everyone would recognize. It's why they placed F3 in Washington D.C. far away from the events or characters of either F1 and F2, because they were testing to see if people would respond before they went about dictating what familiar characters would do.

In short, people complain about Fallout not being what it once was, but this is sillyness. 2D top down styles have not been the mainstream style of RPG story telling for a while. To expect anything but "Oblivion with guns" was just being unrealistic and ultimately doing the same kind of expectation building that most people did with Duke Nukem.

EDIT: On Chris Avalone's twitter account he says that since F3 the Fallout Bible itself is no longer canon. So invoking the lore from that is pointless.
http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisAvellone/status/101700464676044800
You are confusing lore with content. Nothing you did was of any consequence. In the original games, every town you visited was affected in a way based on what you did or did not do. What was the ending in Fallout 3? "Uh, you died." or "Uh, you didn't die, but you really should have." The plot just halted.

EDIT: Let me assure you that any ire is directed towards Bethesda, not you.

My point was that I am questioning their design decisions for that game. YES 3D sandboxes require careful design and development. There isn't very much you can add between towns in the desert or indeed a forest. Want to know what the ancients who created Fallout 1 and 2 did? They realized this and decided to OMIT the areas and focus on development of areas that actually matter. They could have easily implemented a familiar system with the random encounters as well with minimal intrusiveness.

a completely inoffensive name

08-26-2011, 05:12

That's the problem. It was a full price demo marketed as FALLOUT 3. Point is moot since New Vegas was nearly the exact same thing.

This is just hyperbole though. It was a full game that could give 100+ hours of content, just because it provide enough content for you doesn't mean that it is a demo.

Fallout 1 and 2 were not scrollers. "3D is hard" is not an excuse. Bethesda had all the experience it needed from Oblivion, and didn't use it.
Forgive me, typing at 3am makes me say weird things like scrollers when I didn't mean to say that. They are top down 2D games and it is easier to change the game environment than it is for a 3D first person perspective game. Unless they were to spend another year on it, what they did was already awesome for the Gamebryo engine. They allowed you to wipe out an entire city. It takes more time to get the same level of "change" possible on the latter than it is for the former, but big budget games have a strict timeline. This essentially does make a valid excuse because they literally do not have enough time to put in everything you could think of for every single region like F1 and F2.

It's not the size, it's the content.
The size of the game world greatly impacts the content within it.

I am failing to grasp the point you are trying to make... That 3D sandboxes are hard to program? Yes, it is an endeavor, but it is not an excuse to release an empty crater of a game.
More hyperbole. F3 has tons of content and to deny that is going over the top. If you are going to compare F2 as the standard level of content required than every modern RPG from the ME series to F3 and New Vegas is just an empty crater.

You are confusing lore with content. Nothing you did was of any consequence. In the original games, every town you visited was affected in a way based on what you did or did not do. What was the ending in Fallout 3? "Uh, you died." or "Uh, you didn't die, but you really should have." The plot just halted.
Megaton, Tennpenny Tower and the end game for Broken Steel have big consequences. The reason why not every single place has these type of consequences is because of what I said earlier, the higher complexity of the game engine and the strict timeline makes it impossible to replicate the F2 experience on Gamebryo.

EDIT: Let me assure you that any ire is directed towards Bethesda, not you.
No problem.

My point was that I am questioning their design decisions for that game. YES 3D sandboxes require careful design and development. There isn't very much you can add between towns in the desert or indeed a forest. Want to know what the ancients who created Fallout 1 and 2 did? They realized this and decided to OMIT the areas and focus on development of areas that actually matter. They could have easily implemented a familiar system with the random encounters as well with minimal intrusiveness.
I have my doubts about that. Bethesda was comfortable in using the Gamebryo engine in the way that Oblivion was structured. To break the mold again by attempting a new spin on how you perceive the world in a first person perspective like that (does your screen fade to black and then you reappear in the next town, or do you just fast travel everywhere?) would be 1. risky 2. time intensive 3. unnecessary from their perspective as they had just made a well polished RPG that had many square miles of "empty space".

CrossLOPER

08-26-2011, 15:29

OK, I'll concede that they did the best they could. However, that is why a sandbox was not the best idea. Morrowind worked because they had more time to work on the content and add charm to the game overall. They maintained the design decision used in Arena and Daggerfall that empty spaces are boring and should be minimized. In Arena and Daggerfall, time was of the essence with any quest. In Daggerfall, you could purchase horses, carts, ships and properties to expand your mercenary gig and get were you need to go. Morrowind kept the flow with boats, Silt Striders, and propylon devices. You needed to know where you needed to go. You were rewarded for research. There was always something you had to look out for. Why oh why they decided to hop on the teleporter and quest marker pointer plague ship is beyond me. All it did was make those empty spaces emptier.

I am not sticking to nostalgia. I think that the new Deus Ex looks like one of the best games I have seen in a while and am sorry that I did not pre-order. Likewise, I will be looking forward to seeing what they have done in Skyrim. I hope it's GREAT. It's just that seeing what they've done with Fallout New Vegas is disheartening. Same game with terrible expansions. This after they PROMISED that they would focus on shipping out fewer, better crafted DLCs.

Drunk Clown

08-26-2011, 16:46

I vote that this thread goes to only saying which game series left you, without saying why. Cos it always comes to this game sucks, instead of I think this game isn't as good as the previous. And most of the reasons why are really shallow. The game has not become what you wanted it to be, but it doesn't suck. You're just disappointed, most of the time it's you, not the series. So don't add "this is what mainstream wants", you do not represent "core" gamers. So leave that out.

Most of you like Civ IV; I think it's boring. I do not claim that the game sucks, it's just not a game for me.

lars573

08-26-2011, 17:20

OK, I'll concede that they did the best they could. However, that is why a sandbox was not the best idea. Morrowind worked because they had more time to work on the content and add charm to the game overall. They maintained the design decision used in Arena and Daggerfall that empty spaces are boring and should be minimized. In Arena and Daggerfall, time was of the essence with any quest. In Daggerfall, you could purchase horses, carts, ships and properties to expand your mercenary gig and get were you need to go. Morrowind kept the flow with boats, Silt Striders, and propylon devices. You needed to know where you needed to go. You were rewarded for research. There was always something you had to look out for. Why oh why they decided to hop on the teleporter and quest marker pointer plague ship is beyond me. All it did was make those empty spaces emptier.
You want to know what the thing I HATED most about Morrowind was? The lack of a comprehensive fast travel system. Having to spend hours on the trudge through empty wilderness. Of only being able to fast travel to the cities or large enough settlements. I grit my teeth just thinking about all the time pissed away going from the stilt strider stop to a quest marker. I seriously question the sanity of you, or anyone, who claims to like the system Morrowind had.

Prussian to the Iron

08-26-2011, 18:58

johnhughthom

08-26-2011, 19:03

It was loads better than Oblivions fast travel system; instant-fast travel to any place on the map means no need or real care for exploration. Perhaps it coulda been a little more expansive in Morrowind, allowing for easier travel to the more remote areas, but it felt more real. Besides, it only takes a few minutes most of the time, especially with a high athletics skill.

It encouraged exploration, while Oblivion encouraged instantly teleporting between areas with no idea what was between them.

Meh, I played Oblivion and never once used the fast travel system, if I hadn't read posts on the internet whinging about it I would never know it existed. I don't see why it ccouldn't have been put in for people who want to use it. I didn't like Oblivion and felt it was an inferior game to Morrowind, but fast travel had no effect on my game experience whatsoever.

CrossLOPER

08-26-2011, 20:19

lars573

08-27-2011, 05:58

It was loads better than Oblivions fast travel system; instant-fast travel to any place on the map means no need or real care for exploration. Perhaps it coulda been a little more expansive in Morrowind, allowing for easier travel to the more remote areas, but it felt more real. Besides, it only takes a few minutes most of the time, especially with a high athletics skill.
If by a few you mean 20, then sure. For several quests I spent over half an hour going from the closest stilt strider stop to the dungeon location.

It encouraged exploration, while Oblivion encouraged instantly teleporting between areas with no idea what was between them.
Because what was between them didn't matter to the quest at hand. Besides the Dark Brotherhood sends you to places off the beaten path. Do that first and you've explored enough.

You knew about Divine and Almsivi Intervention, right? Also, the small settlements had boats. I don't remember finding an issue with locating a grotto or temple in the wilderness as the directions given were usually dead-on.
What are things that cost money, or are scrolls you have to find. It's not finding places that's the problem, it's the drudgery trudge to and from.

Prussian to the Iron

08-27-2011, 15:00

If by a few you mean 20, then sure. For several quests I spent over half an hour going from the closest stilt strider stop to the dungeon location.

Because what was between them didn't matter to the quest at hand. Besides the Dark Brotherhood sends you to places off the beaten path. Do that first and you've explored enough.

What are things that cost money, or are scrolls you have to find. It's not finding places that's the problem, it's the drudgery trudge to and from.

I'd rather have 20 minutes of running through the detailed and interesting countryside, discovering new places, then I would spend 5 seconds at a loading screen instantly teleporting anywhere I want.

Yeah they didn't matter to the quest at hand. But they were still explorable and interesting nonetheless. You can't just discount a cave or dungeon because it's not important right at that moment. True the Brotherhood takes you to a few non-insta-fast-travel places, but not that many really. And even then, it's not exploring enough. On an average playthrough of Oblivion where the player does every quest possible and fast-travels to whatever they can, I would expect maybe 20% of the landmarks (anything noted on the map, and some things that even aren't) to be discovered.

lars573

08-27-2011, 15:40

I'd rather have 20 minutes of running through the detailed and interesting countryside, discovering new places, then I would spend 5 seconds at a loading screen instantly teleporting anywhere I want.
I really prefer Cyrodill's environs to Vvardefell's.

Yeah they didn't matter to the quest at hand. But they were still explorable and interesting nonetheless. You can't just discount a cave or dungeon because it's not important right at that moment. True the Brotherhood takes you to a few non-insta-fast-travel places, but not that many really. And even then, it's not exploring enough. On an average playthrough of Oblivion where the player does every quest possible and fast-travels to whatever they can, I would expect maybe 20% of the landmarks (anything noted on the map, and some things that even aren't) to be discovered.
Wrong. It's much higher than that.

Prussian to the Iron

08-27-2011, 16:11

I really prefer Cyrodill's environs to Vvardefell's.

Wrong. It's much higher than that.

But do you prefer Cyrodiil because of the better graphics, or the better environments? Vvardenfell was varied; swamps, mountains, desert, plains, volcanic region,and, in the expansion, snow. Cyrodiil was pretty much just grasslands, a tiny bit o forest, and some snowy mountains.

And I highly doubt that. I know that on my first playthrough, in which I utilized fast travel to a great extent, I didn't discover anywhere close to the amount of interesting places.

here's a full map of Cyrodiil in Oblivion, with every location discovered. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't discover 20% of all the places without actively searching for them, which fast travel discourages.

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/article/703/703867/geleto2_es4o_worldmap.jpg

rajpoot

08-27-2011, 16:22

The fact that Morrowind sorely lacked a fast travel system is one that cannot be refuted. Oblivion having one does not mean it forces players to use it. If one likes to roleplay and walk all around the map, it's their choice. But the point is it should be a choice.

On thread subject; The only game that comes to mind right now is Dragon Age. I can rant about how it was a terrible betrayal by Bioware, but everyone already knows that.

Edit:
Oh and Diablo. Number three is already off my list due to the new buy-sell system.

lars573

08-27-2011, 17:22

But do you prefer Cyrodiil because of the better graphics, or the better environments? Vvardenfell was varied; swamps, mountains, desert, plains, volcanic region,and, in the expansion, snow. Cyrodiil was pretty much just grasslands, a tiny bit o forest, and some snowy mountains.
Wrong again. The western part is hilly grass lands (the gold coast and Colovian highlands), the south is swamp (blackwood), the north east is mountains both forested (valus mountains) and snow capped (Jerall mountains), the central areas around Imperial city are a mix of forest (the great foreset) and transition areas (West weald and Nibany basin). But unlike Morrowind the transition isn't literally a line. Graphical candy aside, Vvardenfell is just poorly designed if you HAVE to walk/swim most places. Soulsteim, Cyrodill, and the Shivering Isles are much more walk friendly.

And I highly doubt that. I know that on my first playthrough, in which I utilized fast travel to a great extent, I didn't discover anywhere close to the amount of interesting places.

here's a full map of Cyrodiil in Oblivion, with every location discovered. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't discover 20% of all the places without actively searching for them, which fast travel discourages.

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/article/703/703867/geleto2_es4o_worldmap.jpg
That map includes things that aren't fast travel locations. And so now your going to back pedal and slap qualifiers on what you can find. Bull. Going by that map one game I went about 60% of what shows up on the fast travel map.

Drunk Clown

08-27-2011, 18:17

If I see one thing here, it's that people over idolize Morrowind. Just wake up.

Most of your arguments are rubbish anyway. Fast travel is a choice, you're not forced to do it. More options is better according to you, so why not fast travel.

This whole point of you missing places around Cyrodiil caused by fast travel isn't a flaw of the game, it's a flaw of you, you used fast travel right?
It's just pathetic, you want to convince others so much that Oblivion sucks that you look for non existent problems.

Crazed Rabbit

08-27-2011, 19:15

Gentlemen,

Keep your posts in line with the Org standards. Reasonable people can disagree about what games they like and why they like or dislike them, and do so politely.

The Arena is a relaxed place to talk about games besides Total War, and it will remain that way.

Crazed Rabbit

Kekvit Irae

08-27-2011, 22:04

Oh and Diablo. Number three is already off my list due to the new buy-sell system.

^
This. Blizzard just gave gold farmers the green light to do as they please.
Torchlight 2, on the other hand, will be on the top of my 'must buy' list. Oh, and it's going to be only 20 dollars.

lars573

08-27-2011, 23:40

Explain?

rajpoot

08-28-2011, 05:08

Link (http://technologizer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-iii-gold-farming/)

This kind of stuff is OK in am MMO. It ruins the concept of loot, for me at least, in an RPG.

CrossLOPER

08-28-2011, 14:36

Wrong again. The western part is hilly grass lands (the gold coast and Colovian highlands), the south is swamp (blackwood), the north east is mountains both forested (valus mountains) and snow capped (Jerall mountains), the central areas around Imperial city are a mix of forest (the great foreset) and transition areas (West weald and Nibany basin). But unlike Morrowind the transition isn't literally a line. Graphical candy aside, Vvardenfell is just poorly designed if you HAVE to walk/swim most places. Soulsteim, Cyrodill, and the Shivering Isles are much more walk friendly.
Point to me one spot in Oblivion that is comparable to either Vivec or the area where you find the shrine of Azura.

Graphical candy aside, Vvardenfell is just poorly designed if you HAVE to walk/swim most places. Soulsteim, Cyrodill, and the Shivering Isles are much more walk friendly. OK, if you don't want to walk/swim somewhere, what do you suggest? I guess you could fly or even jump to the location....in Morrowind.

If I see one thing here, it's that people over idolize Morrowind. Just wake up.

Most of your arguments are rubbish anyway. Fast travel is a choice, you're not forced to do it. More options is better according to you, so why not fast travel.

This whole point of you missing places around Cyrodiil caused by fast travel isn't a flaw of the game, it's a flaw of you, you used fast travel right?
It's just pathetic, you want to convince others so much that Oblivion sucks that you look for non existent problems.
I'm not idolizing Morrowind. I'm just criticizing some of the design decisions they made in Oblivion, such as the combat mechanics which ended up cutting down on weapon types. Also I just found Morrowind more interesting. The stark variation between the natural environments, towns, races, the fact that the Dwarven ruins seemed much more interesting than the Ayleid ruins, probably because they stood out more. Regarding the variation between races, that variation has returned in Skyrim (http://kotaku.com/5833906/twenty-different-faces-for-each-of-skyrims-races/gallery/1). I just hope that the voice actor count has gone back up.

Jolt

08-28-2011, 19:05

Invisible War was a good game and you cannot prove otherwise.

Everything is bad. Everything.

Story is awful, stupid, unbelievable and streamlined.
The Setting is awful. Is the game supposed to be Star Trek?
Levels are awful, small and streamlined.
Voice actors are awful.
Graphics were worse than Deus Ex 1 (Now that's an accomplishment). Their skin shined brighter than a star on outside lightning.
Changes made to the hud/Skilltree/ammo were awful.
Gameplay was awful.
The AI was awful.
God. Everything just :daisy: sucked.

You play Deus Ex 1 and you love it. Then try switching to Deus Ex 2 and you immediately start getting the feel of how bad the game is.

And I'll allow one of the DX:IW game developers prove you otherwise.

Warning: The video has a couple of swear words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGIdYl2oN74

Fortunately, Deus Ex 3 appears to be a worthy successor to Deus Ex 1, and I'm gonna buy it shortly.

johnhughthom

08-28-2011, 19:15

Fortunately, Deus Ex 3 appears to be a worthy successor to Deus Ex 1, and I'm gonna buy it shortly.

As somebody who shares your opinions of Deus Ex and that unmentionable thing codenamed IW(:uhoh:), I can assure you HR will not disappoint.

Montmorency

08-29-2011, 03:09

Everything is bad. Everything.

Story is awful, stupid, unbelievable and streamlined.
The Setting is awful. Is the game supposed to be Star Trek?
Levels are awful, small and streamlined.
Voice actors are awful.
Graphics were worse than Deus Ex 1 (Now that's an accomplishment). Their skin shined brighter than a star on outside lightning.
Changes made to the hud/Skilltree/ammo were awful.
Gameplay was awful.
The AI was awful.
God. Everything just :daisy: sucked.

You play Deus Ex 1 and you love it. Then try switching to Deus Ex 2 and you immediately start getting the feel of how bad the game is.

And I'll allow one of the DX:IW game developers prove you otherwise.

Fortunately, Deus Ex 3 appears to be a worthy successor to Deus Ex 1, and I'm gonna buy it shortly.

What can I say? I disagree on all counts.

Kralizec

08-29-2011, 13:29

You want to know what the thing I HATED most about Morrowind was? The lack of a comprehensive fast travel system. Having to spend hours on the trudge through empty wilderness. Of only being able to fast travel to the cities or large enough settlements. I grit my teeth just thinking about all the time pissed away going from the stilt strider stop to a quest marker. I seriously question the sanity of you, or anyone, who claims to like the system Morrowind had.

Yeah, that's the reason why I generally made my Morrowind characters fast and athletic. Occasionally I would also use the alchemy "exploit" to create potions that increased running speed to absurd proportions, especially for missions that require a lot of wilderness hiking. Ditto for levitation potions.

The fast travel system of Oblivion is without the greatest improvement over Morrowind. The combat system is marginally better. In virtually all other respects Morrowind was a better game IMO, especially when it's enhanced with various mods.
Oblivion was a good game in itself and I enjoyed it, but what ticked me off was all the stuff that was part of Morrowind and not brought back in Oblivion. I missed spears, crossbows and throwing weapons. I missed levitation and being able to summon more than one Daedra/undead at the same time. I disliked that they changed the Imperial Legion from Roman looking to medieval looking, and I hated how they changed the Khajiit race, and to a lesser degree the Argonians and Dunmer.

lars573

08-29-2011, 17:29

Point to me one spot in Oblivion that is comparable to either Vivec or the area where you find the shrine of Azura.
Cloud ruler temple, Imperial city.

OK, if you don't want to walk/swim somewhere, what do you suggest? I guess you could fly or even jump to the location....in Morrowind.
The skip the walk fast travel system that Oblivion has. It cuts out the actual walk and estimates how long it would have taken you and plops you down after the appropriate time has passed. Everyone thinks Oblivions fast travel is some kind of instant teleport system, and it's not.

Yeah, that's the reason why I generally made my Morrowind characters fast and athletic. Occasionally I would also use the alchemy "exploit" to create potions that increased running speed to absurd proportions, especially for missions that require a lot of wilderness hiking. Ditto for levitation potions.
And I never did any of those things. I can't do magic or stealth characters. I like top club fools up-side the head too much.

The fast travel system of Oblivion is without the greatest improvement over Morrowind. The combat system is marginally better. In virtually all other respects Morrowind was a better game IMO, especially when it's enhanced with various mods.
Oblivion was a good game in itself and I enjoyed it, but what ticked me off was all the stuff that was part of Morrowind and not brought back in Oblivion. I missed spears, crossbows and throwing weapons. I missed levitation and being able to summon more than one Daedra/undead at the same time. I disliked that they changed the Imperial Legion from Roman looking to medieval looking, and I hated how they changed the Khajiit race, and to a lesser degree the Argonians and Dunmer.
And the changes to the combat system (while a huge improvement) are the reason spears are gone. Oblivion has 2 basic combat systems. melee and ranged. Spears/hafted weapons/staves would require a full third system. And I don't miss thrown weapons. They could bring back crossbows though. And really the Imperial armour in Morrowind was medieval with some roman stuff thrown on top of it.

Link (http://technologizer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-iii-gold-farming/)

This kind of stuff is OK in am MMO. It ruins the concept of loot, for me at least, in an RPG.
So it's nothing more than Blizzard regulating, and profiting from, something that's been going on for years? And hear I though it was something. Once again I underestimate cry-baby gamers. :wall:

rajpoot

08-29-2011, 18:41

So it's nothing more than Blizzard regulating, and profiting from, something that's been going on for years? And hear I though it was something. Once again I underestimate cry-baby gamers. :wall:

Oh yeah sure. I remember how in Diablo 2 I got the best equipment at an online store, instead of loot chests.
And how playing Diablo itself needed me to stay connected to the Internet all the time.

Online stores such as this should be limited to MMORPGs, instead of polluting singleplayer games.

lars573

08-29-2011, 18:57

Oh yeah sure. I remember how in Diablo 2 I got the best equipment at an online store, instead of loot chests.
And how playing Diablo itself needed me to stay connected to the Internet all the time.

Online stores such as this should be limited to MMORPGs, instead of polluting singleplayer games.
You realize that item trading in Diablo is only stuff that the game gives out anyway? Show me evidence that this is going to anything but what has been happening for 10 years.

a completely inoffensive name

08-30-2011, 02:23

^
This. Blizzard just gave gold farmers the green light to do as they please.

I would rather have Blizzard moderate and take a slice from legal gold farming than have it the way it used to be. They are going to be there no matter what, why bother trying to fight them?

Jolt

08-31-2011, 19:20

I would rather have Blizzard moderate and take a slice from legal gold farming than have it the way it used to be. They are going to be there no matter what, why bother trying to fight them?

So, if I'm playing in Single Player and want a certain item, what's to stop me from getting a free trainer or hack or whatever to get me all the fricking items I want?

In a multiplayer game, it would make minimal sense to have such a system. In Single-Player... -.-

Drunk Clown

08-31-2011, 20:39

So, if I'm playing in Single Player and want a certain item, what's to stop me from getting a free trainer or hack or whatever to get me all the fricking items I want?

In a multiplayer game, it would make minimal sense to have such a system. In Single-Player... -.-

Your own principals?

Jolt

09-01-2011, 06:02

Your own principals?

Principals on what?

I thought that I was buying games to have fun, and if my idea of fun is having an overpowered level 99 with full Meteoric Diamond-made Armor and one Meteoric Diamond Two-Handed Sword in each hand that deals 9999 damage per hit and has 90% hit chance, from the very beginning of the game until the end, why should anyone have anything to do with that?

In a multiplayer environment where you are competing with other players, where they also waste their time playing a game, it makes (Minimal) sense to have a system where you can buy weapons from them, the other players that would take a very long time to farm or do quests to get the item, and since that item would be used against other players.

In a singleplayer environment, I fail to see the point. I'm playing against the computer. If I want the best weapon to defeat whatever dungeon I want, for my sole enjoyment, and if I don't want to waste 2 hours farming gold so I can go to the Auction House and buy that weapon for a huge price, I would cheat. Since I doubt Diablo 3 will have "get item x" cheats because of that system, then I would use a trainer.

The end purpose is that the game provides me what I purchased it for: To have fun.

Drunk Clown

09-01-2011, 11:12

Principals on what?

I thought that I was buying games to have fun, and if my idea of fun is having an overpowered level 99 with full Meteoric Diamond-made Armor and one Meteoric Diamond Two-Handed Sword in each hand that deals 9999 damage per hit and has 90% hit chance, from the very beginning of the game until the end, why should anyone have anything to do with that?

In a multiplayer environment where you are competing with other players, where they also waste their time playing a game, it makes (Minimal) sense to have a system where you can buy weapons from them, the other players that would take a very long time to farm or do quests to get the item, and since that item would be used against other players.

In a singleplayer environment, I fail to see the point. I'm playing against the computer. If I want the best weapon to defeat whatever dungeon I want, for my sole enjoyment, and if I don't want to waste 2 hours farming gold so I can go to the Auction House and buy that weapon for a huge price, I would cheat. Since I doubt Diablo 3 will have "get item x" cheats because of that system, then I would use a trainer.

The end purpose is that the game provides me what I purchased it for: To have fun.

I don't see why you won't have fun.
So according to this you don't like games which has cheats featured in it?

How is it a problem to have options? You said it yourself "I can go to the Auction House". It's your own choice.
I know people who like to be overpowered and walk through the game with cheats, but I don't care. I don't do it.

Sarmatian

09-01-2011, 15:59

He's pointing out the stupidity of implementing that system in a single player game, where you don't have to have the same, unmodded version to play. I can download a trainer and give myself all those nice items for free. So, if I feel like cheating, I can use a trainer, mod or even a crack and give myself anything I want without the need to pay, whether in real-world or in-game currency.

Now, Blizzard isn't stupid and I'm sure they're aware of this and will go to great lengths to make it impossible, or at least unbelievably hard.

Jolt

09-01-2011, 16:55

I don't see why you won't have fun.
So according to this you don't like games which has cheats featured in it?

How is it a problem to have options? You said it yourself "I can go to the Auction House". It's your own choice.
I know people who like to be overpowered and walk through the game with cheats, but I don't care. I don't do it.

He's pointing out the stupidity of implementing that system in a single player game, where you don't have to have the same, unmodded version to play. I can download a trainer and give myself all those nice items for free. So, if I feel like cheating, I can use a trainer, mod or even a crack and give myself anything I want without the need to pay, whether in real-world or in-game currency.

Now, Blizzard isn't stupid and I'm sure they're aware of this and will go to great lengths to make it impossible, or at least unbelievably hard.

It will probably be the first game a company will implement an anti-hacking system on the single player.

And what happens to people who cheat in single-player and are caught? Do they get banned from their own games? Do the police come by their houses to arrest them for breaking their game's terms and regulations?

Drunk Clown

09-01-2011, 17:24

Build a bridge and get over it.

CrossLOPER

09-01-2011, 23:27

Cloud ruler temple, Imperial city.
Azura Shrine: A remote area of natural columns projecting into the sky from the sea with a classic Morrowind pattern temple. Found only by intrepid explorers.
Cloud Ruler Temple: A small, unremarkable Korean-style castle with a handful of posted guards, with maybe a couple of them sparring. You teleport there about five seconds after hearing about it.

Vivec: A gigantic fortress-city with many looming cantons filled with numerous shops, government (faction) offices, A FLYING MOON AND A GOD. Said to lift far into the sky during times of siege. Has its own transportation system.
Imperial City: A large circular castle with a lot of unremarkable houses and a large spire with nothing in it. Sewer levels.

The skip the walk fast travel system that Oblivion has. It cuts out the actual walk and estimates how long it would have taken you and plops you down after the appropriate time has passed. Everyone thinks Oblivions fast travel is some kind of instant teleport system, and it's not.
So... a fast forward button? What difference does it make? Time is not a factor. At all. Also, I am forced to believe that never once was I attacked by marauders or renegade elves or some freaks or skeletons or whatever during the entire trip. Apparently I ran by them. Maybe if I ran by Mankar Camoran, time would have fast forwarded to the point where I beat him by stabbing him repeatedly. This would make sense if I had to pay to be part of a caravan or something in order to get to the next town quickly and safely. It would have made the world seem much bigger and dangerous.

Drunk Clown

09-02-2011, 00:16

Azura Shrine: A remote area of natural columns projecting into the sky from the sea with a classic Morrowind pattern temple. Found only by intrepid explorers.
Cloud Ruler Temple: A small, unremarkable Korean-style castle with a handful of posted guards, with maybe a couple of them sparring. You teleport there about five seconds after hearing about it.

Vivec: A gigantic fortress-city with many looming cantons filled with numerous shops, government (faction) offices, A FLYING MOON AND A GOD. Said to lift far into the sky during times of siege. Has its own transportation system.
Imperial City: A large circular castle with a lot of unremarkable houses and a large spire with nothing in it. Sewer levels.

So... a fast forward button? What difference does it make? Time is not a factor. At all. Also, I am forced to believe that never once was I attacked by marauders or renegade elves or some freaks or skeletons or whatever during the entire trip. Apparently I ran by them. Maybe if I ran by Mankar Camoran, time would have fast forwarded to the point where I beat him by stabbing him repeatedly. This would make sense if I had to pay to be part of a caravan or something in order to get to the next town quickly and safely. It would have made the world seem much bigger and dangerous.

Then walk! Serious if there's one question I would ask you: Why don't you just walk, you don't have to use fast travel. I would really appreciate if you answer this question. How can something so trivial ruin it for you? How can you play a game if you are that annoyed by something so little.

Are you a grumpy old man?

Jolt

09-02-2011, 03:07

Build a bridge and get over it.

Already did. :) (Literally, I have already built what you can call a bridge and crossed it to the other side)

What is that supposed to mean?
Are you even arguing for something?

Graphic

09-02-2011, 05:41

Sigh Call of Duty. To add on to my original post that sulked over the downfall of the series, I just played Black Ops from the free weekend. I made it 29 minutes before deleting.

I came in first in a FFA after four rounds with a 2.7 KDR just by spraying an MP5 from the hip and hopping like a jackhole. I was awesome at the game before I even played it because they've all been exactly the same since CoD4.

I might be excited for a CoD when they bring out their first offering on the next generation of consoles. It'll be their first new game in 6 years.

Greyblades

09-02-2011, 06:16

Imperial City: A large circular castle with a lot of unremarkable houses and a large spire with nothing in it. Sewer levels.
Well, to give it some credit, it is home to the library that contain the titular Elder scrolls.

lars573

09-02-2011, 23:32

Azura Shrine: A remote area of natural columns projecting into the sky from the sea with a classic Morrowind pattern temple. Found only by intrepid explorers.
Cloud Ruler Temple: A small, unremarkable Korean-style castle with a handful of posted guards, with maybe a couple of them sparring. You teleport there about five seconds after hearing about it.

Vivec: A gigantic fortress-city with many looming cantons filled with numerous shops, government (faction) offices, A FLYING MOON AND A GOD. Said to lift far into the sky during times of siege. Has its own transportation system.
Imperial City: A large circular castle with a lot of unremarkable houses and a large spire with nothing in it. Sewer levels.
Imperial city, and elven tower and walls with human houses built into and around them. Vivec was pretty boring a bunch of trapezoidal towers. And I've never found but 1 or two Daedric shrines in Morrowind.

So... a fast forward button? What difference does it make? Time is not a factor. At all. Also, I am forced to believe that never once was I attacked by marauders or renegade elves or some freaks or skeletons or whatever during the entire trip. Apparently I ran by them. Maybe if I ran by Mankar Camoran, time would have fast forwarded to the point where I beat him by stabbing him repeatedly. This would make sense if I had to pay to be part of a caravan or something in order to get to the next town quickly and safely. It would have made the world seem much bigger and dangerous.
Yes you did. Because I've done that while not fast traveling, run right the hell by them and gotten away.

Kekvit Irae

09-03-2011, 10:10

I would rather have Blizzard moderate and take a slice from legal gold farming than have it the way it used to be. They are going to be there no matter what, why bother trying to fight them?

1. I would rather have heavy enforcement than regulation. Log onto any server in WoW and take a stroll through either Stormwind or Orgrimmar. My BadBoy anti-spam addon blocked maybe one spam message every 30 minutes or so, on peak hours. Compare this with any Free To Play Korean MMO (of which I have experienced a few myself), and you'll get completely BOMBARDED with messages in all chat channels with advertisements of gold selling. And when I say bombarded, I mean several messages per second. I'm not kidding about this, I've played FTP games that had this. I like my immersion in a game, thank you very much.

2. Regulation will directly support humanitarian crimes (http://www.news.com.au/technology/chinese-labour-prisoners-world-of-warcraft-jixi-re-education-camp-scam/story-e6frfro0-1226063275491#ixzz1NQMAXTj8).

3. Gold and item selling (both of which are regulated in D3) are based on grinding, not skill. I wholeheartedly support Blizzard's decision to have the Mod Marketplace in StarCraft II as a way for modders to gain revenue for their creations, as modding in the game is a bit more than just point and click; it requires skill, patience, and a crapload of balancing to create something enjoyable enough that people will want to play it. Furthermore, SC2 mods are creations by the players themselves, whereas the Diablo III marketplace will list ONLY Blizzard assets that anyone can get, no skill required.

4. It will be eBay all over again. You work hard enough to find that rare Legendary Winged Gun Mace Sword Thingy of Lord Mudkips, so you decide to list it on the marketplace for a fair price. Then some jerk comes along and lists the very same item for a penny less. Then someone else sells their sword for a penny less than him. It eventually snowballs what would have been a decent economy into a massive deflation of value across the board. Anyone who has played WoW will know the horrors of trying to play the auction house without having a PhD in Microeconomics.

econ21

09-03-2011, 13:23

World of Warcraft - Patch 4.2. Anyone who plays WoW will know why I canceled my subscription.

What was your problem with 4.2, Kek? 4.1 I might have understood, but 4.2 had quite a bit of new content.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-03-2011, 15:20

Empire earth left me:(>

Prussian to the Iron

09-03-2011, 17:26

Empire earth left me:(>

That was a GOOD game. I loved that game. I really need to find it again

johnhughthom

09-03-2011, 17:47

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/empire_earth_gold_edition

Drunk Clown

09-03-2011, 18:11

Empire Earth sucks.

CrossLOPER

09-03-2011, 18:27

Imperial city, and elven tower and walls with human houses built into and around them. Vivec was pretty boring a bunch of trapezoidal towers. And I've never found but 1 or two Daedric shrines in Morrowind.
I don't know. I just don't think that an empty tower surrounded by townhouses guarded by dudes in rusty suits does not compare to a massive complex guarded by fanatical xenophobes with ornate armor (WHO ACTUALLY ATTACK YOU IF YOU WEAR IT) with a floating space rock converted into a government office (destined to doom the city) and a god. Whatever. As for the temples, there were tons of shrines, temples, and ancient Dunmer keeps. And they had stuff in them other than HDR bloom.

Yes you did. Because I've done that while not fast traveling, run right the hell by them and gotten away.
You are OK with the fact that you can outrun pretty much anything from level 1? Oh wait, leveled enemies...

Kekvit Irae

09-03-2011, 19:37

What was your problem with 4.2, Kek? 4.1 I might have understood, but 4.2 had quite a bit of new content.

Look at the patch notes, specifically the dungeon and raid notes. The WoW forums went from "OMG THE GAME IS TOO EASY! BUFF!" in WotLK into "OMG THE GAME IS TOO HARD! NERF!" in Cata into "OMG THE GAME IS TOO EASY! BUFF!"
Cata raids used to be all about precision and coordination. I, personally, wouldn't have any problem with the patch if it wasn't for the fact that Blizzard didn't really do any extensive research into why they needed nerfs. They just followed the rants of the vocal minority. The biggest insult was that they backpeddled (http://www.wowhead.com/patchnotes=4.2.0) on their own words (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2053469) just to please these children and avoid more people unsubscribing.
And yes, I was NOT pleased with 4.1 either due to just rehashing old content, but 4.2 was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

Kekvit Irae

09-03-2011, 19:48

Empire Earth sucks.

Yep, being an updated version of one of the best historic RTS games that gives you the option to fully customize your civilization's unique benefits with upgrade points sure does suck.

At the risk of incurring a moderator's wrath, I'm going to say that the next time you have an opinion, please keep it to yourself. Saying "So-and-so sucks" without backing up your claim is the epidome of immaturity and fanboyism. Look at the big argument above over Oblivion vs Morrowind; both sides give their reasons with subjective opinions and objective facts. If you want to say "So-and-so sucks" then please explain why it sucks.

Montmorency

09-03-2011, 20:08

When the shoe is on the other foot...

Drunk Clown

09-03-2011, 20:59

Yep, being an updated version of one of the best historic RTS games that gives you the option to fully customize your civilization's unique benefits with upgrade points sure does suck.

At the risk of incurring a moderator's wrath, I'm going to say that the next time you have an opinion, please keep it to yourself. Saying "So-and-so sucks" without backing up your claim is the epidome of immaturity and fanboyism. Look at the big argument above over Oblivion vs Morrowind; both sides give their reasons with subjective opinions and objective facts. If you want to say "So-and-so sucks" then please explain why it sucks.

You call me immature? I find that highly offensive.

Jolt

09-04-2011, 00:22

Yep, being an updated version of one of the best historic RTS games that gives you the option to fully customize your civilization's unique benefits with upgrade points sure does suck.

At the risk of incurring a moderator's wrath, I'm going to say that the next time you have an opinion, please keep it to yourself. Saying "So-and-so sucks" without backing up your claim is the epidome of immaturity and fanboyism. Look at the big argument above over Oblivion vs Morrowind; both sides give their reasons with subjective opinions and objective facts. If you want to say "So-and-so sucks" then please explain why it sucks.

I thought Drunk Clown had made it crystal clear that he was a troll. Don't try to reason with a troll.

lars573

09-04-2011, 00:39

I don't know. I just don't think that an empty tower surrounded by townhouses guarded by dudes in rusty suits does not compare to a massive complex guarded by fanatical xenophobes with ornate armor (WHO ACTUALLY ATTACK YOU IF YOU WEAR IT) with a floating space rock converted into a government office (destined to doom the city) and a god. Whatever. As for the temples, there were tons of shrines, temples, and ancient Dunmer keeps. And they had stuff in them other than HDR bloom.
Never went in Dunmer keeps either, the leveled enemies within were always annoying. And yes I do prefer a mix of two very different architectural styles vs. 7 piles of mud bricks with one having a rock floating over it.

You are OK with the fact that you can outrun pretty much anything from level 1? Oh wait, leveled enemies...
More than you could possibly know.

Prussian to the Iron

09-04-2011, 05:20

Gregoshi

09-04-2011, 05:30

Due to the intense amounts of butthurt between Morrowind and Oblivion going on here, might I suggest a separate thread, specifically designated as an Oblivion v Morrowind topic? It would probably gather more attention and would stop the somewhat off-topic discussion in this thread.

There already is one: Morrowind and Oblivion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129172-Morrowind-and-Oblivion)

Prussian to the Iron

09-04-2011, 06:18

There already is one: Morrowind and Oblivion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129172-Morrowind-and-Oblivion)

Then let's get these guys to continue their argument in there

econ21

09-04-2011, 12:31

Look at the patch notes, specifically the dungeon and raid notes. The WoW forums went from "OMG THE GAME IS TOO EASY! BUFF!" in WotLK into "OMG THE GAME IS TOO HARD! NERF!" in Cata into "OMG THE GAME IS TOO EASY! BUFF!"

I suspect this is largely the natural consequence of people gearing up: content designed for item level x gets easy when you average item level x + 50. Even in wotlk, which was easier than Cata, I remember being shocked when I died tanking normal Nexus on an alt. It's just that alt had the right gear for the instance, so it was appropriately challenging, whereas I was used to massively outgearing the instance on heroic with my main. With Cata 5-mans, there have been a few nerfs, but they were minor, and the reason people faceroll them now is that they massively outgear them as they used to outgear wotlk ones.

Cata raids used to be all about precision and coordination. I, personally, wouldn't have any problem with the patch if it wasn't for the fact that Blizzard didn't really do any extensive research into why they needed nerfs. They just followed the rants of the vocal minority.

I am not sure that's right. They have nerfed T11 but also made it very unrewarding (in valor points). It's to make it accessible to people who could not complete it prior to the nerfs. The superior raiders are supposed to be in Firelands (and possible T11 heroics) which are no easier than pre-nerf T11. I think it's a sensible approach - keep the current content challenging, but make the previous tier accessible to all.

Even the two new 5-mans require some precision and coordination (I say that having died 19 times to the last boss in ZG in one horrific PUG).

I agree with you that at launch, Cata required more precision and coordination than wotlk did. I personally liked that change, although I doubt the majority of players did. Doing the heroics for the first time felt like doing 5 man progression raids. I loved it, but my guild dissolved soon after. You may be right that Blizzard will dumb down future content to keep up sales. But it's not evident that they are going that way atm. 4.3 may be a test case. If the three new 5-mans are a step up in difficulty like the ICC 5-mans were, then all is well imo. If they are easier than the Zuls, then I will concede your point.

CrossLOPER

09-04-2011, 15:37

That thread is kinda ancient.

Never went in Dunmer keeps either, the leveled enemies within were always annoying.
So you didn't explore anything and you were frustrated by the fact that there were enemies which you could not defeat when you were at a low level. I don't know what to tell you. Actually that brings up a good point. Why was a single untrained peasant with substandard equipment able to immediately jump into a hellmouth which consumed an entire city filled with trained guards backed up by a squad of Imperial Guardsmen? In Morrowind, Caius Cosades recommended that you visit trainers and start off slow on your adventures, and you were being watched over by a daedric god in that game. The pacing is just so bad.

And yes I do prefer a mix of two very different architectural styles vs. 7 piles of mud bricks with one having a rock floating over it.
Vivec was larger and had more relevant individuals in each canton. The Imperial City was about the size of one canton and had sectors where there was nothing of note. Though I could say that the Imperial City resembles half a barbell, I can't say anything about personal architectural preferences.

More than you could possibly know.
Again, I don't know what to tell you. It just feels silly that I can trust my character to safely stroll through the wilderness without once being subject to an ambush or being attacked by mountain lions or man-sized crabs that shoot force lightning. It's just laughable.

Then walk! Serious if there's one question I would ask you: Why don't you just walk, you don't have to use fast travel. I would really appreciate if you answer this question. How can something so trivial ruin it for you? How can you play a game if you are that annoyed by something so little.

Are you a grumpy old man?
The fast travel alone does not ruin anything for me. If that was the only problem, I would have never mentioned it. The fact that it exists baffles me. It is utterly unexplained and is presented yo you early in the game, allowing you to go across the province in a moment. I will admit, Morrowind did something similar in the form of the Silt Strider standing right next to Seyda Neen. The difference is that the Silt Strider a) provides a plausible explanation for safe passage and b) crosses over an potentially dangerous area where a new player could easily meet their untimely end. However, they could most certainly try and find quite a few interesting things along the way. The slave cave provides an early opportunity for looting. Most of it is low-quality iron, but it's better than nothing. Backing up a bit, Seyda Neen has its share of drama for such a small village. Further down the road you can become a messenger in a love story, before getting into one yourself.

Drunk Clown

09-04-2011, 16:59

ReluctantSamurai

09-04-2011, 17:08

On topic: TW. I'm a Shoggie I fanboi through-and-through. I enjoyed the series up to RTW, but CA lost me after that. I have not tried STW2 as of yet (for various reasons, not the least of which is Steam), but I will at some point.

Off topic: I'm probably one of those insane that lars573 refers to. I like to "waste" endless hours wandering the countryside...it's beautiful and it fits the RPG image that my ranger-like characters have. I remember my first playthrough where I would often run into an ambush totally flat-footed because I had the camera view pointed up looking at all the tall scenery :)

In successive playthroughs (and after adding on many, many cool plug-ins) I find myself less and less concerned with doing quests than I do in "fighter sweeps" through the badlands to kill cliff racers and dragons....the latter is much more fun than the former. I never had anywhere near the amount of fun playing Oblivion as I did Morrowind, game mechanics aside. And for me, that's why I play games....to have fun. I still play the Baldur's Gate Trilogy (with a whole slew of mods which folks over at G3 are still cranking out) even to this day, which I suppose points up my opinion on graphics vs. gameplay......

Prussian to the Iron

09-04-2011, 17:09

I completely agree with this one. It's the main reason why I had more fun playing Morrowind than Oblivion. It was satisfying when you found new armor, not to mention there were more pieces (pauldrons, guantlets, left and right). You better do the main quest in Oblivion when you are at a low level, cos when you do it at high it gets harder. That's Bull:daisy:. Kvatch packed with frost atronachs.

Yeah, at a low level, Oblivion was a breeze. especially if you didnt advance your main skills that much you could beat the game with no problem. if you stay at level 10 or 15ish you could definitely beat anything the game throws at you. If you tried to pull crap like that in Morrowind (like attacking an Ash Vampire/citadel), you'd never get through.

lars573

09-04-2011, 18:45

So you didn't explore anything and you were frustrated by the fact that there were enemies which you could not defeat when you were at a low level. I don't know what to tell you. Actually that brings up a good point. Why was a single untrained peasant with substandard equipment able to immediately jump into a hellmouth which consumed an entire city filled with trained guards backed up by a squad of Imperial Guardsmen? In Morrowind, Caius Cosades recommended that you visit trainers and start off slow on your adventures, and you were being watched over by a daedric god in that game. The pacing is just so bad.
Here's a secret about Morrowind. It had level scaling too. Just the least heavy handed of any ES game. So just like in Oblivion you could walk into none quest areas that were full of level keyed critters/undead/bandits. And given how unstable the game was, and my penchant for getting absorbed into playing and not saving. Means in sand box games, I don't go anywhere the game doesn't tell me. That sort of exploring leads to broken controllers. From being fired into the wall/toybox repeatedly. I've went through 2 original Xbox controllers like that. And I can't afford the same with 360 controllers. I nearly broke a controller after dying in an Oblvion gate 8 times. Thankfully it landed on the mailer box for DCUC Swamp Thing, or it might have broke. And the hero of Kvatch has 9 gods looking out for you.

Vivec was larger and had more relevant individuals in each canton. The Imperial City was about the size of one canton and had sectors where there was nothing of note. Though I could say that the Imperial City resembles half a barbell, I can't say anything about personal architectural preferences.
Cyrodill is what half the size of Vvardenfell? The scale is different, ofcourse there's more stuff in Vivec. Your making a VERY bad comparison. Which with Vvardenfell being completely destoryed by the ministry of truth crashing into the city and causing red mountain to obliterate the entire island, if it's ever seen again it will have similar scale to Imperial city.

Again, I don't know what to tell you. It just feels silly that I can trust my character to safely stroll through the wilderness without once being subject to an ambush or being attacked by mountain lions or man-sized crabs that shoot force lightning. It's just laughable.
Oh he probably was. But if you don't draw a weapon and just run along the road, they being in "combat mode" can't catch you. And eventually you'll meet the Imperial watch highway patrol and they'll take care of it.

a completely inoffensive name

09-04-2011, 22:03

1. I would rather have heavy enforcement than regulation. Log onto any server in WoW and take a stroll through either Stormwind or Orgrimmar. My BadBoy anti-spam addon blocked maybe one spam message every 30 minutes or so, on peak hours. Compare this with any Free To Play Korean MMO (of which I have experienced a few myself), and you'll get completely BOMBARDED with messages in all chat channels with advertisements of gold selling. And when I say bombarded, I mean several messages per second. I'm not kidding about this, I've played FTP games that had this. I like my immersion in a game, thank you very much.

2. Regulation will directly support humanitarian crimes (http://www.news.com.au/technology/chinese-labour-prisoners-world-of-warcraft-jixi-re-education-camp-scam/story-e6frfro0-1226063275491#ixzz1NQMAXTj8).

3. Gold and item selling (both of which are regulated in D3) are based on grinding, not skill. I wholeheartedly support Blizzard's decision to have the Mod Marketplace in StarCraft II as a way for modders to gain revenue for their creations, as modding in the game is a bit more than just point and click; it requires skill, patience, and a crapload of balancing to create something enjoyable enough that people will want to play it. Furthermore, SC2 mods are creations by the players themselves, whereas the Diablo III marketplace will list ONLY Blizzard assets that anyone can get, no skill required.

4. It will be eBay all over again. You work hard enough to find that rare Legendary Winged Gun Mace Sword Thingy of Lord Mudkips, so you decide to list it on the marketplace for a fair price. Then some jerk comes along and lists the very same item for a penny less. Then someone else sells their sword for a penny less than him. It eventually snowballs what would have been a decent economy into a massive deflation of value across the board. Anyone who has played WoW will know the horrors of trying to play the auction house without having a PhD in Microeconomics.

1. How do you know that regulation = spam everywhere? If it is regulated they could very well just set rules limiting gold farmers to trade channel (idk how diablo works, never played it myself) at the risk of being enforced while other gold farmers continue to skate by. Then gold farmers wont over step their boundaries because they don't want to be at a disadvantage. Judging from your post about the vocal minority getting what they want in WoW I am sure that when people complain to Blizzard in any of their games (except SC2), they get the oil for their squeeky wheel.

2. You say that as if Blizzard's hands have blood on them. If someone wanted to make a legit gold farming operation that wasn't horribly run, now they can make a living. Just because the Chinese have set the standard on how to make gold farming as profitable as possible doesn't mean that Blizzard is suddenly a monster for realizing that they wont. go. away. ever.

3. I agree but this is the new business model. This is how companies want to get profits now. Blizzard is allowing people to play to level 20 for free. Why? Because the new business model is unlock every thing with real cash, microtransactions that are taxed upon etc... Call of Duty has their "elite" pay system for lots of stats to tell you that you are great with the FAMAS. This is just how things are now. Video games have now been more mainstream than ever. And because of old console video games dont require people to upgrade their PC every 2-3 years. So now the entry barrier for PC gaming is lower than ever and guess what? The masses never want anything good. They want grinding because people don't like putting in effort to gain skill at a game. When a forum gets too big, the comments become closer to YouTube quality. This is how it works and always has been when you transition from a smaller niche of consumers to casuals. I don't care for it, but you can't fight it.

4. I don't see the point here. The pride is in acquiring the item, not in the reward of selling it. The journey is what is truly enjoyable if we are going to get purist here about our video games. If the item doesn't sell for a lot, then it doesn't sell for a lot. Markets are a pain, just like in RL.

CrossLOPER

09-05-2011, 01:01

Here's a secret about Morrowind. It had level scaling too. Just the least heavy handed of any ES game. So just like in Oblivion you could walk into none quest areas that were full of level keyed critters/undead/bandits. And given how unstable the game was, and my penchant for getting absorbed into playing and not saving. Means in sand box games, I don't go anywhere the game doesn't tell me. That sort of exploring leads to broken controllers. From being fired into the wall/toybox repeatedly. I've went through 2 original Xbox controllers like that. And I can't afford the same with 360 controllers. I nearly broke a controller after dying in an Oblvion gate 8 times. Thankfully it landed on the mailer box for DCUC Swamp Thing, or it might have broke. And the hero of Kvatch has 9 gods looking out for you.
You could argue that fate had an interest in the Hero of Kvatch, but they had no direct intervention from the gods. The Nine Divines are not known to communicate with mortals, with the Neravarine being the prime exception. You do remember Wolf, right??

Cyrodill is what half the size of Vvardenfell? The scale is different, ofcourse there's more stuff in Vivec. Your making a VERY bad comparison. Which with Vvardenfell being completely destoryed by the ministry of truth crashing into the city and causing red mountain to obliterate the entire island, if it's ever seen again it will have similar scale to Imperial city.
How is it a bad comparison? Cyrodill is four times the size of Vvardenfell. They had plenty of space and free artistic reign to design the crossroads of the empire however they wanted and they apparently got tired. Where are the kingdom offices? Are the races in the Imperial City so well integrated that they totally lack any special sectors?

Oh he probably was. But if you don't draw a weapon and just run along the road, they being in "combat mode" can't catch you. And eventually you'll meet the Imperial watch highway patrol and they'll take care of it.
A character with a speed of <85 outrunning a mountain lion... Interesting. I suppose its no more ridiculous than every single bandit wearing deadric gear. I remember when I had to either risk getting my flesh blown off by a wizard or dive into hole under a Dwemer ruin under a modern city being attacked by steam-punk lizards in order to get MOST of a daedric suit of armor. Thanks to Oblivion, I can simply walk 10 meters outside any city and see a pack of marauders wearing suits with matching weapons. I guess you could make the argument that, as the Oblivion crisis persisted, daedric gear became more common. However, I find the scale of this event depicted in the game to be implausible unless a massive demon train full of dark equipment got stranded somewhere and became a dangerous place of legend accessible only after the Oblivion crisis passed.