Joevonzombie
Literate
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2016
- Messages
- 45
Fixed that for ya.FNV fixing many things that didn't worked in Fallout 3 including but not restricted to Quests, skill checks, setting, narrative and NPCs.
Quests are more broken and sometimes more primitive than in Fallout 3, following more traditional and simplified hub quest system and some of them are actually awful and worse than anything Fallout 3 threw at you - dragging a corpse through a desert, triggering companion quests, praying for quests to actually work. Skill checks are in Fallout 3 and you probably encounter them in you first dialogue after tutorial.
Wait wait wait, You saying that have a character with 100 in shield, sneak, magic and every other skill is better than an focused one, with actual weaknesses?Please say you don't and i am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
No, nothing like that. And if you are implying Morrowind character would have any weaknesses unlike Oblivion or Skyrim character then again, it's similar to religious fervor. Just as with Fallout 3, the fact that developers had bothered to write a good story doesn't mean they made the rest of the game better.
Amusing how you guys use term like Bethestard and defending an old broken game refusing to see it's even worse in most regard than more advanced titles. Now that I look at it, Morrowind/Skyrim and Fallout3/New Vegas fan wars are similar in some regards. Morrowind had huge problems with gameplay, balance, quest/journal/faction system, world reactivity, dialogue system, characters. It had a very strong central narrative, lore that actually defines the world, exploration, inventory management. Later Bethesda decided to do action-oriented RPG and dropped the focus on lore and arguably made exploration less interesting with dropping transportation services and magic in favor of fast travel. It also fixed characters and made world the most alive RPG world we ever get (unless you compare it to small compact "worlds" like Gothic or open-world systemic games like Space Rangers or Din's Curse). Some people prefer focus on narrative over everything else, some people prefer focus on... pretty much everything else, as every other system in Skyrim is better or around the same as in Morrowind, apart from mentioned transport system. Some, of course, can not afford to comprehend their taste is not an objective measure of all possible qualities and they defend their favourite one against the bad one by trying to prove it's better in all regards, including those that didn't change or are obviously worse. Morrowind has a better story but in no possible way it has better characters, factions, gameplay, combat, progression system and so on. Skyrim fans disregard Morrowind not just because of inferior things like combat or dialogue, but try to ridicule the the better things like story or main quest - and looking for that Dwemer Puzzle Box had forced Bethesda to add quest mark because they can't be bothered to design quests and locations that actually work. You don't see them is much cause they don't have to prove anything, but I met them.
Same thing with Fallout3/NV. NV is not as big leap ahead as Skyrim over Morrowind, and it doesn't fixes as much, but as the base game was mostly good gameplay it didn't have to. Like Skyrim fixed characters and combat and many other things, NV had fixed narrative and world reactivity. It's a good choose-your-own-adventure book plus Fallout 3 gameplay. It dropped exploration from Fallout 3 and added some story problems like lack of motivation for player in first act. It also didn't use the engine properly so we get bad quests. It dropped open world systems. But for some people narrative is enough. For some people liking flawed game with a good narrative and not liking a game of similar quality with a good exploration is not enough.
So again, if you're asking yourself "is Skyrim worth it" - define what's important for you, story or the rest of the game.
And if the rest is more important then you still probably don't need Skyrim because there are plenty of games since that did similar gameplay even better and didn't drop the
Fixed that for ya.FNV fixing many things that didn't worked in Fallout 3 including but not restricted to Quests, skill checks, setting, narrative and NPCs.
Quests are more broken and sometimes more primitive than in Fallout 3, following more traditional and simplified hub quest system and some of them are actually awful and worse than anything Fallout 3 threw at you - dragging a corpse through a desert, triggering companion quests, praying for quests to actually work. Skill checks are in Fallout 3 and you probably encounter them in you first dialogue after tutorial.
Wait wait wait, You saying that have a character with 100 in shield, sneak, magic and every other skill is better than an focused one, with actual weaknesses?Please say you don't and i am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
No, nothing like that. And if you are implying Morrowind character would have any weaknesses unlike Oblivion or Skyrim character then again, it's similar to religious fervor. Just as with Fallout 3, the fact that developers had bothered to write a good story doesn't mean they made the rest of the game better.
Amusing how you guys use term like Bethestard and defending an old broken game refusing to see it's even worse in most regard than more advanced titles. Now that I look at it, Morrowind/Skyrim and Fallout3/New Vegas fan wars are similar in some regards. Morrowind had huge problems with gameplay, balance, quest/journal/faction system, world reactivity, dialogue system, characters. It had a very strong central narrative, lore that actually defines the world, exploration, inventory management. Later Bethesda decided to do action-oriented RPG and dropped the focus on lore and arguably made exploration less interesting with dropping transportation services and magic in favor of fast travel. It also fixed characters and made world the most alive RPG world we ever get (unless you compare it to small compact "worlds" like Gothic or open-world systemic games like Space Rangers or Din's Curse). Some people prefer focus on narrative over everything else, some people prefer focus on... pretty much everything else, as every other system in Skyrim is better or around the same as in Morrowind, apart from mentioned transport system. Some, of course, can not afford to comprehend their taste is not an objective measure of all possible qualities and they defend their favourite one against the bad one by trying to prove it's better in all regards, including those that didn't change or are obviously worse. Morrowind has a better story but in no possible way it has better characters, factions, gameplay, combat, progression system and so on. Skyrim fans disregard Morrowind not just because of inferior things like combat or dialogue, but try to ridicule the the better things like story or main quest - and looking for that Dwemer Puzzle Box had forced Bethesda to add quest mark because they can't be bothered to design quests and locations that actually work. You don't see them is much cause they don't have to prove anything, but I met them.
Same thing with Fallout3/NV. NV is not as big leap ahead as Skyrim over Morrowind, and it doesn't fixes as much, but as the base game was mostly good gameplay it didn't have to. Like Skyrim fixed characters and combat and many other things, NV had fixed narrative and world reactivity. It's a good choose-your-own-adventure book plus Fallout 3 gameplay. It dropped exploration from Fallout 3 and added some story problems like lack of motivation for player in first act. It also didn't use the engine properly so we get bad quests. It dropped open world systems. But for some people narrative is enough. For some people liking flawed game with a good narrative and not liking a game of similar quality with a good exploration is not enough.
So again, if you're asking yourself "is Skyrim worth it" - define what's important for you, story or the rest of the game.
And if the rest is more important then you still probably don't need Skyrim because there are plenty of games since that did similar gameplay even better and didn't drop the story ball as low. Nothing Bethesda did is among those games.
I'm confused as to what actually worked I'm Fallout 3. it's an "rpg" where character builds have no real affect on actual gameplay or world. It also has just as many technical issues as New Vegas. There are locations I still cannot go into to this day without the game crashing. I couldn't complete the quests in Tenpenny Tower or Oasis due to shit not triggering correctly. Lack of motivation in New Vegas' first act? Did you magically forget that you were shot and are trying to find the asshole that did it?
The quests in Fallout 3 consist of going to X location and talking or killing character Y with only one solution. Vegas at least gave you multiple ways to handle things.
The exploration element of 3 is undermined by the fact the world itself is a chore to navigate because of poor design decisions and the fact that there is nothing to really do in the majority of the locations. There is so much wasted real estate in the game.