Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Skyrim,worth it?

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
FNV fixing many things that didn't worked in Fallout 3 including but not restricted to Quests, skill checks, setting, narrative and NPCs.
Fixed that for ya.

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
FNV fixing many things that didn't worked in Fallout 3 including but not restricted to Quests, skill checks, setting, narrative and NPCs.
Fixed that for ya.

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.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
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.

Yeah, Fallout 3 was not great in terms of bugs too. Builds had an effect on wether you use VATS (which became useless in FNV) and focus on melee or long range weapons and how much resources you spend on repairs which was less important in FNV. Not a whole lot of different playstyles but no less than in FNV which added some interesting perks, made energy weapons somewhat more valuable but made VATS and melee useless as well as adding useless Survival and making Repair obsolete.

Fallout 3 had quest chains with variable solutions, many of which didn't require fighting and could be resolved in different ways depending on your character stats - just like in FNV. The infamous exploding Megaton quest requires no shooting and depends on your skills. There's a Nuka Cola collector quest which is very similar to Star Sunset Sasparilla quest in its stupidity, but with Stars there's, again, a narrative twiest. There's a village of cannibals you can befriend if you're cannibal yourself. There are quests for stealing stuff, talking to people, sneaking into places. Skyrim and Fallout 4 are much more formulaic in their approach (even though they still have quests not requiring you to fight), but Fallout 3 and FNV and that different in ways you can resolve things and Fallout 3 actually lacks mechanically bad quests and has sort of interesting emerging quests due to various factions traversing the world and meeting the player and each other. FNV just makes all those choices more memorable cause the world in general is more consistent narratively though it's still very cringeworthy.

Majority of Fallout 3 locations has some story behind it. Most of quests in Fallout are unmarked and have some environmental storytelling. Obsidian is miles ahead in terms of storytelling but they rarely focus on environmental details. FNV could be percieved as top-down isometric game and it wouldn't lose much, Fallout 3 uses its medium much better including locations: every single one of them has something going for it. In FNV you find more believable things like just a cave with coyotes and that's it. Fallout 3 may feel forced in that it's afraid you'll be bored if you don't find something interesting every 2 minutes, but FNV's approach to making world just a set of paths to quest decisions - most of which originate in specific quest hubs - is hardly better.

By the way, they did much better in FNV DLCs which are, I think the real masterpieces, much more so than the base game. 2 of them have good interesting open world areas, 1 has a great environmental design and survavlist atmosphere, and 1 has an actual 3d environment suitable for combat. Nothing like that exists in the base game.
 

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
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.

Yeah, Fallout 3 was not great in terms of bugs too. Builds had an effect on wether you use VATS (which became useless in FNV) and focus on melee or long range weapons and how much resources you spend on repairs which was less important in FNV. Not a whole lot of different playstyles but no less than in FNV which added some interesting perks, made energy weapons somewhat more valuable but made VATS and melee useless as well as adding useless Survival and making Repair obsolete.

Fallout 3 had quest chains with variable solutions, many of which didn't require fighting and could be resolved in different ways depending on your character stats - just like in FNV. The infamous exploding Megaton quest requires no shooting and depends on your skills. There's a Nuka Cola collector quest which is very similar to Star Sunset Sasparilla quest in its stupidity, but with Stars there's, again, a narrative twiest. There's a village of cannibals you can befriend if you're cannibal yourself. There are quests for stealing stuff, talking to people, sneaking into places. Skyrim and Fallout 4 are much more formulaic in their approach (even though they still have quests not requiring you to fight), but Fallout 3 and FNV and that different in ways you can resolve things and Fallout 3 actually lacks mechanically bad quests and has sort of interesting emerging quests due to various factions traversing the world and meeting the player and each other. FNV just makes all those choices more memorable cause the world in general is more consistent narratively though it's still very cringeworthy.

Majority of Fallout 3 locations has some story behind it. Most of quests in Fallout are unmarked and have some environmental storytelling. Obsidian is miles ahead in terms of storytelling but they rarely focus on environmental details. FNV could be percieved as top-down isometric game and it wouldn't lose much, Fallout 3 uses its medium much better including locations: every single one of them has something going for it. In FNV you find more believable things like just a cave with coyotes and that's it. Fallout 3 may feel forced in that it's afraid you'll be bored if you don't find something interesting every 2 minutes, but FNV's approach to making world just a set of paths to quest decisions - most of which originate in specific quest hubs - is hardly better.

By the way, they did much better in FNV DLCs which are, I think the real masterpieces, much more so than the base game. 2 of them have good interesting open world areas, 1 has a great environmental design and survavlist atmosphere, and 1 has an actual 3d environment suitable for combat. Nothing like that exists in the base game.

Environmental story telling doesn't change the fact that still isn't anything to actually do in these locations. Obsidian doesn't focus on environmental details? I would recommend giving this a look https://youtu.be/wvwlt4FqmS0. Obsidian was able to create a world that's somewhat believable where Bethesda just gave us theme park filled with "cool shit" and they know what kind of games they made, Nuka World was basically them winking at us and admitting it. You're also giving theme way too much credit, builds really don't really affect that much. Checks usually just lead to a new dialog option with the same outcome. It's incredibly superficial. The game was designed for any idiot to be able to finish it with minimal frustration.
 

Neki

Scholar
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
145
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.
Do you work for bethesda?
Skyrim fixed characters and combat and many other things
Yeah, why i need character skill? I just wanna press the attack button and drink some potions, skyrim is pure incline:happytrollboy:

It also fixed characters and made world the most alive RPG world we ever get
I don't even
It's a good choose-your-own-adventure book plus Fallout 3 gameplay.
Fallout 3 gameplay IS shit and is criticized.Arcannnum combat is shit and it is criticized,what is your point?The choose-your-own-adventure parts in F:NV is what make worth playing.I wouldn't want to play an excuse for an fps, like Fallout3 and NV are, but i would want to play a '' choose-your-own-adventure'' type of game which you already admitted that F:NV is and FO3 isn't.
Morrowind has a better story but in no possible way it has better characters, factions, gameplay, combat, progression system and so on.
Citation needed.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
Environmental story telling doesn't change the fact that still isn't anything to actually do in these locations. Obsidian doesn't focus on environmental details? I would recommend giving this a look https://youtu.be/wvwlt4FqmS0. Obsidian was able to create a world that's somewhat believable where Bethesda just gave us theme park filled with "cool shit" and they know what kind of games they made, Nuka World was basically them winking at us and admitting it. You're also giving theme way too much credit, builds really don't really affect that much. Checks usually just lead to a new dialog option with the same outcome. It's incredibly superficial. The game was designed for any idiot to be able to finish it with minimal frustration.

You are repeating my point as if you disagree. Bethesda creates worlds that are superficial, yes. Action-oriented. Theme parks. But you're saying it as if it's condemning the game. As if this style has no good qualities on its own like emergent gameplay or shallowness bringing consistency - I mean when you have a simulator of a superhero in a superhero fantasy land you don't have the same issues as in a world that pretends it's realistic but can't ever achieve it. In some regards story-driven games need a bigger suspension of disbelief than theme parks: in a theme park all your dialogue options are very simple and there's nothing else to add, but in a heavy dialogue game like Planescape when you're asked a philosophical question and have 10 options to answer lacking an option that feels obvious for you is much more noticeable. So many people prefer Fallout 3 exactly cause they want theme parks and FNV doesn't have that. Yeah, it has fields in caves, but it doesn't have all those standalone location. And *there is* something to do in each one of them, while in Vegas there's either nothing to do or you have to return when you get the quest.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
And by the way, about "The game was designed for any idiot to be able to finish it with minimal frustration" - isn't it one of the stated goals of FNV to leave you ways to complete the game? Fallout 3 doesn't care if you want to do main quest, even though it always there. FNV makes no sense if your character doesn't pursue the main quest, and as I said the first act suffers for it. Fallout 3 has less assumptions about the character, and even if you decide to follow main quest you're looking for your father which would work for almost any person, while FNV is about specific type of character who would go through hell for the sake of revenge of one of the most powerful people around and/or price of 500 caps for delivering a chip. This is probably a right price for raising world credibility from 1% to 5% rating and turning story from children comic book level to teenager comic book level but it's not that big a leap and some people who have selective suspension of disbelief would prefer Fallout 3. And you need an other type of selecitve suspension of disbelief to only like FNV.
 

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
Environmental story telling doesn't change the fact that still isn't anything to actually do in these locations. Obsidian doesn't focus on environmental details? I would recommend giving this a look https://youtu.be/wvwlt4FqmS0. Obsidian was able to create a world that's somewhat believable where Bethesda just gave us theme park filled with "cool shit" and they know what kind of games they made, Nuka World was basically them winking at us and admitting it. You're also giving theme way too much credit, builds really don't really affect that much. Checks usually just lead to a new dialog option with the same outcome. It's incredibly superficial. The game was designed for any idiot to be able to finish it with minimal frustration.

You are repeating my point as if you disagree. Bethesda creates worlds that are superficial, yes. Action-oriented. Theme parks. But you're saying it as if it's condemning the game. As if this style has no good qualities on its own like emergent gameplay or shallowness bringing consistency - I mean when you have a simulator of a superhero in a superhero fantasy land you don't have the same issues as in a world that pretends it's realistic but can't ever achieve it. In some regards story-driven games need a bigger suspension of disbelief than theme parks: in a theme park all your dialogue options are very simple and there's nothing else to add, but in a heavy dialogue game like Planescape when you're asked a philosophical question and have 10 options to answer lacking an option that feels obvious for you is much more noticeable. So many people prefer Fallout 3 exactly cause they want theme parks and FNV doesn't have that. Yeah, it has fields in caves, but it doesn't have all those standalone location. And *there is* something to do in each one of them, while in Vegas there's either nothing to do or you have to return when you get the quest.
If you don't do the main quest in 3, there isn't enough side content to justify continuing because there's nothing to fucking do at most of locations and when you do come across an area that could have been interesting , there's no payoff. Look at the dunwich building, you go through and kill everything there , kill the dude at the altar and then... nothing fucking happens. The entire area is a waste of time.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
If you don't do the main quest in 3, there isn't enough side content to justify continuing because there's nothing to fucking do at most of locations and when you do come across an area that could have been interesting , there's no payoff. Look at the dunwich building, you go through and kill everything there , kill the dude at the altar and then... nothing fucking happens. The entire area is a waste of time.

Don't understand what you mean. Most of locations in Fallout 3 have some special content. Dunwich Building has a history behind it, you unravel the story in the place by reading logs, you get mystical flashbacks. Also there's quest to go there but the place is nice even if you don't have it. There are special monsters there. What else would you want from a location? I understand it may be done better by making places more unique and connected, but it's exactly where Bethesda shines and it's why people like Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Some FNV places have more going on for them but there's just a couple of places like that and most of places are at Fallout 3 quality at best.[/QUOTE]
 

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
If you don't do the main quest in 3, there isn't enough side content to justify continuing because there's nothing to fucking do at most of locations and when you do come across an area that could have been interesting , there's no payoff. Look at the dunwich building, you go through and kill everything there , kill the dude at the altar and then... nothing fucking happens. The entire area is a waste of time.

Don't understand what you mean. Most of locations in Fallout 3 have some special content. Dunwich Building has a history behind it, you unravel the story in the place by reading logs, you get mystical flashbacks. Also there's quest to go there but the place is nice even if you don't have it. There are special monsters there. What else would you want from a location? I understand it may be done better by making places more unique and connected, but it's exactly where Bethesda shines and it's why people like Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Some FNV places have more going on for them but there's just a couple of places like that and most of places are at Fallout 3 quality at best.
[/QUOTE]
The only creatures I recall being in Dunwich are feral ghouls . The story that is told in that building still has no payoff even though it's resisted in the dlc. your character doesn't change or gain anything from it and story and world at large are not affected .
 

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
If you don't do the main quest in 3, there isn't enough side content to justify continuing because there's nothing to fucking do at most of locations and when you do come across an area that could have been interesting , there's no payoff. Look at the dunwich building, you go through and kill everything there , kill the dude at the altar and then... nothing fucking happens. The entire area is a waste of time.

Don't understand what you mean. Most of locations in Fallout 3 have some special content. Dunwich Building has a history behind it, you unravel the story in the place by reading logs, you get mystical flashbacks. Also there's quest to go there but the place is nice even if you don't have it. There are special monsters there. What else would you want from a location? I understand it may be done better by making places more unique and connected, but it's exactly where Bethesda shines and it's why people like Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Some FNV places have more going on for them but there's just a couple of places like that and most of places are at Fallout 3 quality at best.
[/QUOTE]

Vault 11 and REPCONN is what I want. Obsidian was able to make its side content feel like it was part of the main story. everything felt important and generally paid off in some way.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
Vault 11 and REPCONN is what I want. Obsidian was able to make its side content feel like it was part of the main story. everything felt important and generally paid off in some way.

Ah. Well, detailed mini-environments like RepConn (which, by the way, is not really a side content: you're very encouraged to go there unless you do something illegal) that is not was Bethesda even tried to do outside of main quest line. And, frankly, inside of main quest line too, maybe except of Skyrim's Thalmor Embassy mission. Vault 11, however, is just a subpar dungeon with a nice story attached. Fallout 3 has tons of dungeons like that - all of its vaults are like that even though only Art vault (the one with violin) is similar in story quality, then there are museums, that mainframe building, huge Talon mercenary dungeon, dungeons with gimmicks like traps and special weapons... Fallout 3 has much more side content. Shallow, rarely interconnected content - but it's still there and it's better than most of what FNV gives you outside of narrow quest paths.
 

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
Vault 11 and REPCONN is what I want. Obsidian was able to make its side content feel like it was part of the main story. everything felt important and generally paid off in some way.

Ah. Well, detailed mini-environments like RepConn (which, by the way, is not really a side content: you're very encouraged to go there unless you do something illegal) that is not was Bethesda even tried to do outside of main quest line. And, frankly, inside of main quest line too, maybe except of Skyrim's Thalmor Embassy mission. Vault 11, however, is just a subpar dungeon with a nice story attached. Fallout 3 has tons of dungeons like that - all of its vaults are like that even though only Art vault (the one with violin) is similar in story quality, then there are museums, that mainframe building, huge Talon mercenary dungeon, dungeons with gimmicks like traps and special weapons... Fallout 3 has much more side content. Shallow, rarely interconnected content - but it's still there and it's better than most of what FNV gives you outside of narrow quest paths.

It's really not though because Bethesda's level design is atrocious and combat focused and the combat in their games is trash.
 

Neki

Scholar
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
145
ilitarist for
bethestard.png
2016™
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
I will put it out here so any want to delude themselves has no hideyhole:

Bethesda's level of writing is at "Trash". It's not even at bad or recoverable. Nothing can rescue it. In some way, Morrowind's many qualities in most aspects can not elevate its writing up, even though many Bethestard insist otherwise. The fact that Morrowind stand at number 7 in our list of top 70 say a great deal about those qualities, and hide a great deal about its level of writing.
In term of writing, Fallout New Vegas show up Fallout 3 as the kind of trash that it actual is.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
In term of writing, Fallout New Vegas show up Fallout 3 as the kind of trash that it actual is.

In terms of writing.

FNV writing is still bad for the most part, which makes it hilarious people there call me Bethesta fan (I guess that's what it means?) while calling basically a copy of Bethesda game as well as old Bethesda games masterpieces and ignoring inferior mechanics. With Morrowind/Skyrim there can still be an argument for Skyrim losing some of Morrowind gameplay complexity (if you're fan enough to ignore huge advances). but with Fallout3/FNV it's an entertaining show to see how people let FNV qualities to paint things copied from Fallout 3 in a completely different light and ignore the things that where lost.

Btw, here's Chris Avelone recent interview:
"Story-wise, I can definitely say Fallout 2 did a worse job on many fronts than Fallout 1, for example, and New Vegas did a lot of things even worse than Fallout 2, but did better on the world exploration front than F2 could hope to do based on tech alone (but which F3 and F4 did better, imo). "

Can I share my Bethesdard award with him?
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
By all means. Do as you see fit~

I mean, I judge game developers by what they MADE, not what they TALK or WILL MAKE.

And if you dont see the qualitative difference in term of writing between FNV and F3, I see no hope for you. I gave up rescue such people from their abyss looooooong ago. Wallow in your level all you want.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
Too bad you're a
bethestard.png
because you didn't realize Avellone's currently working on Prey 2, so his paycheck (and thus, his life) is currently on direct leash by Bethesda.
By all means. Do as you see fit~

I mean, I judge game developers by what they MADE, not what they TALK or WILL MAKE.

And if you dont see the qualitative difference in term of writing between FNV and F3, I see no hope for you. I gave up rescue such people from their abyss looooooong ago. Wallow in your level all you want.
:salute:
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
And if you dont see the qualitative difference in term of writing between FNV and F3, I see no hope for you. I gave up rescue such people from their abyss looooooong ago. Wallow in your level all you want.

There's a qualitative difference. F3 has bad writing only your momma would call good. FNV has bad writing that would excite your friends. Both are not worthy of my time on their own. Perhaps I'm spoiled by reading books, just as I'm spoiled by games with balanced and thought out systems so I can see both Fallout 3 and FNV being flawed and FNV slightly better, mostly as iterative update and slightly better writing. If for all of you the line between shit and masterpiece is between Fallout 3 and FNV then, as only story matters to you and twists your perception of everything else, you should try Telltale games maybe - those ones have similar, sometimes better level of writing than FNV and don't have all the additional stuff you don't appreciate anyway.
 

jaydee2k

Savant
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
449
In term of writing, Fallout New Vegas show up Fallout 3 as the kind of trash that it actual is.

In terms of writing.

FNV writing is still bad for the most part, which makes it hilarious people there call me Bethesta fan (I guess that's what it means?) while calling basically a copy of Bethesda game as well as old Bethesda games masterpieces and ignoring inferior mechanics. With Morrowind/Skyrim there can still be an argument for Skyrim losing some of Morrowind gameplay complexity (if you're fan enough to ignore huge advances). but with Fallout3/FNV it's an entertaining show to see how people let FNV qualities to paint things copied from Fallout 3 in a completely different light and ignore the things that where lost.

Btw, here's Chris Avelone recent interview:
"Story-wise, I can definitely say Fallout 2 did a worse job on many fronts than Fallout 1, for example, and New Vegas did a lot of things even worse than Fallout 2, but did better on the world exploration front than F2 could hope to do based on tech alone (but which F3 and F4 did better, imo). "

Can I share my Bethesdard award with him?

MCA must be on jet if he thinks F3 & F4 have better exploration than 1&2&NV.
Welcome to the theme park...
 
Last edited:

Joevonzombie

Literate
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
45
And if you dont see the qualitative difference in term of writing between FNV and F3, I see no hope for you. I gave up rescue such people from their abyss looooooong ago. Wallow in your level all you want.

There's a qualitative difference. F3 has bad writing only your momma would call good. FNV has bad writing that would excite your friends. Both are not worthy of my time on their own. Perhaps I'm spoiled by reading books, just as I'm spoiled by games with balanced and thought out systems so I can see both Fallout 3 and FNV being flawed and FNV slightly better, mostly as iterative update and slightly better writing. If for all of you the line between shit and masterpiece is between Fallout 3 and FNV then, as only story matters to you and twists your perception of everything else, you should try Telltale games maybe - those ones have similar, sometimes better level of writing than FNV and don't have all the additional stuff you don't appreciate anyway.

Telltale's writing is highly overrated. If these games are not worthy of your time, why the fuck have you been defending Fallout 3? Also your " the writing's bad because I read books" argument is laughably pretentious. Which RPGs are you playing that are allegedly balanced?
 

nomask7

Arcane
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
7,620
Perhaps I'm spoiled by reading books

Or maybe you're just saying that because literature has status in our culture and games don't.

Books are shit, so reading them is hardly something that would elevate your taste. Smart people don't expect to find good writing, be that books, games, or movies, they focus on what is good beneath the surface. In the case of FNV - the interactivity and sense of being part of momentous intrigue, making choices and role playing.

In the case of literature, you wait for a funny line or the rare amusing scene or you want to see what happens next. You take interest in the characters or at least some of them if there is something about them that happens to be of interest to you personally. Maybe you'll have a nice whoa memory about the story after finishing the book. The actual prose, characterisation, dialogue, and ideas in those books are there to be tolerated. Dostoyevsky is Christian propaganda, so don't try to tell me you read those books for the IDEAS.

It's called suspension of disbelief. Show me a book and I will show you trees that died for nothing much.

BTW, Skyrim is complete crap. Bethesda didn't even bother balancing the game, so they just gave you an opportunity to change difficulty level on the fly whenever you want to - and this time you need it too. The first two side quests I tried to complete - much too hard on normal. I would have to play on the easiest difficulty level to maybe be able to complete them. I mean Novice, then there's Apprentice, and then the normal difficulty level, Adept. You don't even know what level monsters are, so you can't tell whether you should just change difficulty level momentarily or come back later. I killed the scary bear I was supposed to avoid on fucking Expert, with a couple of hits. Now I can't complete the first Fighter's Guild quest unless I do it on Novice, and maybe not even then. There's also fuck all to explore without running into absurdly powerful monsters or bandits. The game is a fucking mess. Whatever you say about Oblivion, at least it wasn't Skyrim. :lol:
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
Telltale's writing is highly overrated. If these games are not worthy of your time, why the fuck have you been defending Fallout 3? Also your " the writing's bad because I read books" argument is laughably pretentious. Which RPGs are you playing that are allegedly balanced?

I don't play Fallout for the story. Maybe for atmosphere and design. Most games that I play or design do not even have a story.

Once again, the logic is: Fallout 3 story is bad compared to FNV. True. FNV story is bad compared to myriads of things, like books. Yet FNV is praised as masterpiece. Moreover, Fallout 2 is no better than Fallout 3 in terms of story, why is this a masterpiece? Logical explanation: games are complex works of art with writing being only one component. Both Fallout 3 and FNV are mainstream games with great emphasis on things besides story. One of those has better story, but the game in general is not that better. Fallout 3 is worse than FNV in some respects, better in some (fewer), but if you hugely prefer one over the other that's purely a matter of taste. I hugely prefer FNV over Fallout 3 but it doesn't make me blind to the facts.

As for balanced RPGs - say, Dragon Age 1 was ok, it had a difficulty curve unlike Fallout games (1-4 and FNV). Same for more linear RPGs like Dark Souls 2 (not 1) or
Gothic 2.

Books are shit, so reading them is hardly something that would elevate your taste. Smart people don't expect to find good writing, be that books, games, or movies, they focus on what is good beneath the surface. In the case of FNV - the interactivity and sense of being part of momentous intrigue, making choices and role playing.

Smart people don't expect to find good writing - that's very funny. So you suspend your disbelief to ignore bad things in FNV but not in Fallout 3? Are you one of those people who argue that Fallout 3 is shit and FNV is one of the best RPGs ever? This interactivity and roleplaying is a small, almost invisible part of the game. And roleplaying is questionable in FNV as your character is much more defined than F3 one and has much more linear paths.

What you've said about Skyrim can be said about Morrowind and Oblivion. I've first played Morrowind before the patches and didn't have a difficulty choice, but then I've tried it later, experienced everything you've described and was horrified. I wouldn't say Skyrim is too hard on normal, the problem is there's no real difficulty curve and people change difficulty level gradually during the game which sort of fixes the problem. Changing it at the start of the game throws balance out of the window - you have to fight without getting hits cause you die quick, so you never develop armor skills and quickly gain weapon ones.
 

oldmanpaco

Master of Siestas
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
13,609
Location
Winter
I vote ilitarist as alt of the month. He seems to know what triggers the autists here just a little to well.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom