ricolikesrice said:
I don't like the game you find good so your review is shitty
k.
for instance i never mentioned fallout to have a good travel system (actually i didnt mention Fallout at all )
And? I mentioned it as another example. Following your logic I could now start yelling that I never mentioned RoA anywhere, so you should stfu about it.
nor did i compared MOTB to SoZ (small lession in reading comprehension: "SoZ was a shock after MOTB" doesnt really sound like i m comparing either games, does it ?)
'SoZ was a shock after MOTB' doesn't sound like comparing, yes.
But: 'comming from the awesome MOTB .... SoZ was a bigger shock than what happened between Morrowind and Oblivion. '
This sure does, because with that sentence structure, you're implying that the 'shitty soz' is a dumbed down version of the 'awesome motb', since later on you compare that to another situation of Oblivion being Morrowind's retarded inbred brother which leads to the conclusion that you find both situations to be of similar nature, so thus, in fact, you are comparing soz to motb.
so as usual you re pulling stuff out of your ass to look all clever and witty instead of actually trying to bring across your point why in your opinion SoZ is a good game - which you utterly failed at so far.
Ok, I thought writing down six pages of both praise and criticism + getting involved in some utterly pointless flamewars that seem to go on in absolute circles actually says a lot.
i did get a good laugh out of that "you cannot compare RoA to SoZ" thing though - hello, are you batshit insane ? RoA is pretty much the cRPG with the best exploration/travel system there is , just like PS:T has the best Writing/Story and just like Fallout has the most CnC. all of these games are old .... that doesnt excuse that 10 years later games are made that apart from better graphics are dumbed down beyond imagination.
Excuse me, but there are four issues right here:
1. I never played RoA so I have no idea how it may compare to SoZ, so no matter how much you write down here how the first one is superior to the second in every possible aspect, it won't affect me in the least possible way, because I have
no opinion whatsoever on Realms of Arkania
2. Games with overland exploration systems have been dead for almost a decade now, and the fact that there is a 'grand comeback' in the (flawed, yes, I fucking acknowledge that there is a lot of place for improvements, mr 'ur_reading comprehension_sux', and I have that stated more than once) form of SoZ is enough of a reason in my book for small rejoicing.
3. If everything was to be compared to classics, writing down long reviews about various aspects of certain games would be almost absolutely pointless, because you could just write down one sentence: Game_x did it better or get a table instead with two columns: classic game_x, new game_y, and then start comparing each feature, and at the end write down the very same, simple conclusion: game_x did it better all those years ago, there's absolutely no point playing game_y because game_x is oh so much better.
4. Examples can be quoted, but never should anything be absolutely compared to them in 100%. In other words, using the previous examples 'game_x did it better, sure, but game_y is also rather good at what it does and it brings a breath of fresh air, even though it's inferior to a CLASSIC' (because, if you didn't know, you could take almost anything, compare it to a game from 10-15 years ago and say that it's inferior to it in every single way). And here is your problem, and that problem is: 'I can't believe SoZ is not Realms of Arkania :< '.
when people compare a story-focused MOTB to the story-focus-masterpiece PS:T i dont see anything wrong in comparing travel-focus-masterpiece RoA with travel-focused SoZ, even if it isnt a direct sequel. From someone like Obsidian i expected a bit more than MMORPG gameplay minus anything that makes even that remotely fun from time to time.
Oh, and here's some more things:
On one hand, MotB can be partially compared to PS:T, because these actually ARE more or less related, because there's a similar dev team working on them, and it can be compared as in 'let's see if they can do what they did 8 years ago again' or 'hey, look, they're recycling ideas'. On the other hand however, can you see anyone comparing motb's story to the story-focus-masterpiece that is Betrayal at Krondor? No? I thought so, because guess what. They. Are. Totally. Unrelated.
And i find posters like Darth Doublestandards in general fucking annoying. Probably the first to bitch about "Oblivion had such shitty dungeons, i fucking loathed them" but when its from the right people then that turns into "dungeons are a bit underdeveloped, could have been more". i mean what the fuck ? same crap as in the mainstream press.
A nice strawman you set up there, chap, but if I had to say that: Yes, Oblivion had shitty dungeons. And you know why? Because they were not underdeveloped, but because they were fucking screwed up and nearly pointless thanks to the game's overall mechanics. Dungeons in soz leave room for further development, and it would be really nice if they would be bigger, yes, but at the same time, going into them is usually worth the while, and if you go, for example, to the shadow cult without preparations or lacking in experience, you're fried. And in Oblivion? With level scaled enemies, loot, and almost everything looking the same? Are you kidding me? To improve dungeons in soz, you'd need to open the toolset and add some rooms, floors whatever. To improve the dungeons of Oblivion, you need to set the whole game up on its head.