For those who played Fallout 2 before playing Fallout

[dolio]

I've never really understood the "I can complete the game in 10 minutes if I already know exactly where on the map to go and get lucky, therefore it sucks" argument. Why is a game better if you necessarily have to unlock its final areas via progressing the plot to a certain point?

 

[Deadeye Dragoon]

I've never really understood the "I can complete the game in 10 minutes if I already know exactly where on the map to go and get lucky, therefore it sucks" argument. Why is a game better if you necessarily have to unlock its final areas via progressing the plot to a certain point?

For the same reason "you have to kill more than x persons (or x boss) to win the game, therefore it sucks". Or "this game has talking deathclaws/cars, the other game had dumb deathclaws/no cars, therefore this game/the other game sucks". People make arbitrary yardsticks based on their favorite games, when in reality the yardstick is completely irrelevant. It just exists as an arguing point that they feel has some kind of merit on their point-by-point "this game is better" lists.

For the person you quoted, their favorite games just happen to be resistant to speed-runs, so he/she chose that point as one of her "quality" yardsticks.I think Morrowind can be beaten in a few hours btw, but I'm sure that's not a glaring design flaw only for it (but it is for games she doesn't like).

 

[dolio]

Actually, Morrowind speed runs came up not too long ago, and there's a video out there of someone beating it in around 10 minutes. It involves using the acrobatics-based 'flight' scrolls you can get near the beginning of the game to jump to the exact right points on the map a couple times, so it's probably a little more difficult than Fallout (in that you have to learn the right angle to jump at from a couple locations), but it can be done.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html

 

[Chefe]

I've never really understood the "I can complete the game in 10 minutes if I already know exactly where on the map to go and get lucky, therefore it sucks" argument. Why is a game better if you necessarily have to unlock its final areas via progressing the plot to a certain point?

I don't have a problem with games can can be completed quickly by way of previous knowledge or exploits. Its when that game incites this kind of discussion that I find it odd (along with other reasons of course). I also found it odd when one of my literature professors decided to spend the entire class period by analyzing a four line poem written by an idiot.

 

[Gosling]

a four line poem written by an idiot.

What poem was that?

 

[Chefe]

a four line poem written by an idiot.

What poem was that?

Don't remember. I think it was about a balloon or a garden. It was in a big book of similar shitty "modern" poems. Anyways it was pretty insignificant. However it was at least tolerable, unlike the class I switched into it from, where the fuckwit teacher decided to spend several weeks analyzing the "complexity" and "depth" and "significance" of The Yellow Wallpaper. English literature professors are nothing but simpletons with large vocabularies.

 

[dolio]

I don't have a problem with games can can be completed quickly by way of previous knowledge or exploits. Its when that game incites this kind of discussion that I find it odd (along with other reasons of course).

But why? Why does the length of time it takes to complete a game using foreknowledge and exploits affect whether or not it's worthy of such discussion?

Incidentally, there's a video linked here of a guy beating Arcanum in 23 minutes.

 

[Chefe]

Sigh

My original post said it would be cool if people got this passionate over really epic, immersive, and deep RPGs. I still enjoyed reading this thread and all the crazy arguments.

 

[Gragt]

Like Fallout 3, you mean?

 

[Chefe]

Exactly. Just like Fallout 2: 3D.