Historical Revisionism in Video Game and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Nutmeg]

I think if they wanted to make an abstract game of moving parts and managing a battle, and just happened to choose sci-fi mechwar as an aesthetic frame, well that's plausible. But I generally have a hard time imagining any game born out of pure wireframe moving blips game-theory. Even the most autistic western programmers generally aren't so pure.

Not sure what you mean? You mean considering them alone in isolation as abstract game mechanics?

As I wrote in a previous post, my own hypothesis is that they first wrote a battlefield simulation program (and indeed at the beginning it may have had an abstract aesthetic, or even a well defined one which was completely different to the final product's -- this happens all the time see e.g. the development history of Thief, or Quake), and then, instead of making another shmup, they thought "how else could players interact with this?" But even if they started with the modern military with mecha aesthetic, which is indeed likely, at some point, they had to have asked themselves that question. If they didn't, they never would have come up with Herzog.

 

[GamerCat_]

I think if they wanted to make an abstract game of moving parts and managing a battle, and just happened to choose sci-fi mechwar as an aesthetic frame, well that's plausible. But I generally have a hard time imagining any game born out of pure wireframe moving blips game-theory. Even the most autistic western programmers generally aren't so pure.

Not sure what you mean? You mean considering them alone in isolation as abstract game mechanics?

As I wrote in a previous post, my own hypothesis is that they first wrote a battlefield simulation program (and indeed at the beginning it may have had an abstract aesthetic, or even a well defined one which was completely different to the final product's -- this happens all the time see e.g. the development history of Thief, or Quake), and then, instead of making another shmup, they thought "how else could players interact with this?" But even if they started with the modern military with mecha aesthetic, which is indeed likely, at some point, they had to have asked themselves that question. If they didn't, they never would have come up with Herzog.

Battle is a rather fundamental game theme. Icycalm wrote about this. Video games started with SPACEWAR. This is what we're into. This is what we do. But impersonal autonomous battle is another conceptual step. I can believe they were just kind of interested in making this for its own sake. Quite cool if so. It's a recurring frustration of mine that there's a general lack of interest in autonomy or building around virtual actors in video game. Many of my favourite games push this stuff. Dead Rising, Vampire Rain, and of course, a lot of "strategy" games (which I mostly enjoy for elements other than 'strategy').

If we really wanted to be more serious video game historians we might actually dig further and try to find more information about this. Right now we're both speculating. I have no real dog in the fight. If this game was a product of pure, abstract mechanical experimentation I am not owned. As I still know that the line of inquiry I favour does reveal a lot, in general, and is essential in many cases. The mere fact we might consider this case worth looking into to learn more is progress. The possibility is now with us. This game may be a mechanical toy with set dressing. Some really are. Still, the set dressing had to come from somewhere, and who can really see whether or not war anime on the tv might this mechanical toy the desired kind? People are not computers, not even the most autistic programmers.

What the answer turns out to be does not matter. What matters is that we are doing a broader and more correct approach to history now. Even if the answer is still mechanical, we look at who above all else.

And then if we solely want to answer this one, rather narrow and pointless question of who had what novel ideas, we can start looking at which "strategy" game first had a "cursor" or whatever else. But I think the more you expand your idea of what constitutes history the more absurd and pointless that starts to look.

Now this thread has reminded me of 'Z' and I want to see if the sourceport makes it more playable than the terrible steam version.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Autism in Video Game Discussions and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.​

 

[Gerrard]

 

[The Decline]

Autism in Video Game Discussions and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.​

I think we have enough evidence to identify a few new Codex troons here.

 

[Viata]

The limitations of old systems forced developers to get creative.

Limitation breeds creativity.

 

[Viata]

King Crispy, can we retitle this thread to "Halfling Rodeo's Retarded Attempt to Revise Video Game History?"

Funny how the username changed, but not his idea.

 

[GamerCat_]

The limitations of old systems forced developers to get creative.

Limitation breeds creativity.

I would actually say in many of these old game cases it's actually the opposite effect at the same time. Technical limitations existed, yes. And demanded a lot of ingenuity and lateral thinking. But at the same time, genres, conventions, and traditions hadn't had time to form and solidify yet. So if you were charged with making say, a 'soccer' game, there was only so much stuff around to shape your idea of what that should look like, only so much audience expectation to meet. It was a conceptual frontier.

Now if you get told to make a soccer game your imagination and that of the audience are dominated by FIFA, and maybe some legacy stuff like 'Serious World of Soccer'.

 

[wwsd]

Looking at the list now and the site's one of those content farms for freelancers. The writer probably doesn't have much interest in RPGs and just searched for popular ones or chose a handful of ones they liked to fire off an article and get £20 or whatever, which you can't fault them for. The editors probably specified games from the last ten years (keeping the "of all time" title because it's better for SEO). I wouldn't take it too seriously, it's just writers making a living and not always getting to write about things they really know or care much about.

The Codex JRPG list is based AF for example, and I've used it a fair few times to both upset the status quo and introduce younger games to some proper JRPGs, not the mainstream normie slop.

Which one is that?

 

[Falksi]

Looking at the list now and the site's one of those content farms for freelancers. The writer probably doesn't have much interest in RPGs and just searched for popular ones or chose a handful of ones they liked to fire off an article and get £20 or whatever, which you can't fault them for. The editors probably specified games from the last ten years (keeping the "of all time" title because it's better for SEO). I wouldn't take it too seriously, it's just writers making a living and not always getting to write about things they really know or care much about.

The Codex JRPG list is based AF for example, and I've used it a fair few times to both upset the status quo and introduce younger games to some proper JRPGs, not the mainstream normie slop.

Which one is that?

This one...

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/rpg-codex-top-55-jrpgs.144923/

 

[Beastro]

This thread started as Sega fanboys being butthurt about Nintendo's success. What is it now?

PC fanboys having to endure the same retarded Nintendo shilling.

But this comment actually sheds a good light on the wider issue.

Success and popularity have become hobby/interest defining now due to the fucking retarded "likes" generation. You get the same in music groups, diss the Beatles and it's a crime, say you prefer niche bands like Europe, Dropkick Murphy's or Therapy ?and you automatically must be wrong coz "muh, sales!" right? Nothing to do with personal preference or fact that different cultures gravitate to different things.

Culture as a whole is dying because counter culture has largely died off and is no longer pushing back as hard to balance it out. Critical thinking is dying along with it because more people are conforming to get the popular "like".

Submit. conform, follow the numbers and mainstream standards...I mean, the over-simplification of Bioware's early formula HAS to be a good thing right? Mass Effect 3 sold millions more than Baldurs Gate 2, PROOF that it's better right? Modernization, sales...it's just like how the Force Awakens is clearly the best Star Wars film and thus best formula, because it made the most money and is modern, right?

"Success"...the true enemy of all art forms.

How many tl;dr reacts have you given me in the last 24 hours, mister sovereign individual champion of culture?

Can a mod just save us the trouble and give him a tl;dr title already, plz?

 

[Silverfish]

Hopefully not, as he's got some pretty interesting things to say, even if one doesn't agree with all of it.

 

[Mountain]

Wrong ME1 loot and talent tree's were awful (they were so poorly implemented they shouldn't have made it into release imo). HigHeR numbeR = BetTeR absolute brain-dead loot system, there's also no real loot table, no prefix/suffix or anything to make it interesting.The talent tree lets you max 50% of important trees prior to mid game i.e its just window dressing rpg mechanics. Combat in general was extremely bad, you can clumsily walk directly into enemies and enemy fire without ever taking cover and kill everything in the game, the combat in Mass Effect is god awful and lets not even start talking about the mako experience.

---
Btw Mountain, the 2D games your're saying are easier to work with than these super complex 3D counter-parts is totally wrong as well. Most modern developers wouldn't have half a clue how to write a 2D game with 16D sprites and animations for constrained hardware like these older games, when you use one of these modern engines 70% of the dev work is done for you, all you have to do now is put in the shiny 3d models, textures, mocap / animation in the game.

Most modern dev's probably never even worked on a game engine or have considered what they could do with an engine to enhance their games game-play. This is also why you need to buy a 5080 Ti just to run a game that consists of walking around a 3d space, watching mindless cut-scenes and cover shooting properly.

It's true that the combat is weak in the original Mass Effect, and the talent tree sucks, but there are a lot of other things that work. The settings, the reaper arch, the characters, the space opera, the dialogue trees. The weak combat and talent trees aren't enough to break it.

Why would developers make old 2D sprites on constrained hardware? modern bicycle manufacturers can't make wooden bicycles either.

70% of the work is not done for you lol. Building new gameplay systems in 3D is a complicated task, and putting it into a 3D world is a massive task. You are talking about indie games that use pre-built features, but most triple-A games have to recode mechanics and systems, and everything they do has to be vetted through all the other mechanics and systems in the game.

Making features on 2D planes with sprites are not comparable. Why do you think it takes 3-4 years with 150 people working on it? In Cyberpunk, CD Projekt Red used years just to get the police to chase you. In 2D games, you do that in half a day.

You are obfuscating the description of a simple game because you love it so much you can't help but pretend it's somehow great in 2025. You are revisionist personified.

You know fully well that the game is outdated, but your attitude meshes with all your other insane opinions on games, which makes me think you might actually believe it's a complex game. You have to pretend I never played it, that no one else can grasp the game, because you are so out of touch that your brain has to go into self-defense mode and ignore that you are playing what amounts to a mediocre flash game.

It's not complex, it's just very replayable because of it's well balanced dynamics. To repeat myself yet again to you, it's got a rock-paper-scissors type system which has more variables than the likes of Mass Effects far more predictable combat.

I've no idea how you dispute that when it's clear you don't know anything about the game. You couldn't even identify it, so yes, you haven't played it (or not to any degree worth an opinion)

As for "out of touch", I literally gave you my fave games of 2024 earlier too at your request lol. Played 'em, really enjoyed 'em...been playing more Star Control with the family lately though.

Why do you keep mentioning the rock-paper-scissor system like it's something unique? Most games are based on it.

What qualifies as a "variable" in your head that is so much better than anything in Mass Effect?

In Mass Effect, you can make a black hole that sucks in enemies, in real-time. Every variable in Star Control is flat compared to that.

You have been running around on this board, screaming that modern games are trash and everyone who plays Nintendo is a fag, that everyone has shitty tastes and that Flashback beats God of War. I'm sorry but it makes me really hesitant to believe you played anything for the last 15 years that ain't a kids game. You would probably combust if you were picking up wood and stone on Dondoko.

I've never said it's unique, I'm using it a as comparison to ME to say that SC's RPS systems have more variables and more depth.

"you can make a black hole that sucks in enemies, Every variable in Star Control is flat compared to that." Sure...the ability to charm opposition crew members over to your ship, dimension jump, change forms etc. all flat compared to that lol. As if.

But SC's combat variables combines with the tactical system to add said "chess-like" depth. In ME, you just use your powers as and when something comes at you. There's no strategic element to it. In SC, you have to pit the right ships, or combos of such ships, against each other to stand a chance. And the real genius of the game is that every ship has a chance to beat the other, despite obvious advantages between various pairings. It's clever, it's fun, and it's unpredictable...hence why it's infinitely more replayable than ME.

And the 2-player made adds to that replayability even more, that is where the game really shines (something which I'm pretty sure ME doesn't have either? I think ME3 did?)

As for "kids games", my fave modern franchises include Nioh, Shin Megami Tensei and Danmaku Unlimited...but sure, "kids games" lol

Do you think flying a sprite into a dot is the same as taking cover behind an object and shooting at aliens in 3D? your bias believes it's the same because you grew up with it. But in reality, people have moved on.

You are like a guy using Morse code to communicate and argue that Morse code allows you to be more complex and nuanced. Not really seeing that you only think so because you love it and grew up with it.

Charming the opposition and changing forms in an old 2D game like that isn't fun anymore. In newer games, you can actually do it, and see it, it's not just blobs changing colors and simple menus.

In Mass Effect, you can make a black hole that sucks in enemies, in real-time. Every variable in Star Control is flat compared to that.

Every doubt is removed - you are retarded cunt.

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't spas out and call everyone a retard? Either you guys are very young or very old.

Segregated? Having a cutscene after a gameplay section is not segregation, both affect the other.

Do they affect the other? What you do in the dialogue portions has no effect on the combat portions (beyond very slight changes in a scant few instances, like being able to reprogram a mech in one ME2 mission, or not fighting two guys in ME1).

The reason it was brought up though is because you suggested it's not fair to criticise Mass Effect based on its story, and I'm trying to point out that the devs deliberately made the story a huge feature, so in my view, it is fair to use the poor quality of the writing as a criticism of the game as a whole. If the game was a straightforward cover shooter where the story was mostly ignorable then what you're saying would make sense, but that's not how Mass Effect is structured at all.

What example do you have of a game that ain't segregated? how do you suggest they do it in Mass Effect?

There's a lot of interesting ways you can do stories in (action) games that vary from the "here's your gameplay section, now stop what you're doing because we're going into a dialogue bit" model. That style reigns supreme nowadays, but in a lot of older games, you got things like:
System Shock - the story is relayed through other characters contacting the player over intercom, with optional message logs for additional backstory.
Half-Life - the story is relayed entirely via the player just seeing things happen and experiencing plot points first hand.
Tomb Raider - the story is relayed mostly through the player actually discovering and seeing things during gameplay. There are short 1 - 2 minute cutscenes at the end of each set of levels to advance the story to the next level set.
Thief - there are pre-mission cutscenes, but otherwise the player tends to get the plot by overhearing guards speaking, without breaking gameplay

Again, though, I don't have any inherent problem with the "cover shooter -> dialogue -> cover shooter" cycle approach Mass Effect uses, and I'm not criticising that model in itself - for the style of story Mass Effect wants to tell, it was inevitable that the player would spend a notable amount of time in dialogue entirely separated from other game mechanics, and that's not a problem, just as it's not a problem in a game like Fallout*. My problem is that I think the writing is bad, which is an issue for Mass Effect because it's structured in a way that places such emphasis on the writing; criticism of the writing is therefore a fair criticism of the entire game.

*though in Fallout, dialogue has much more impact than Mass Effect and combat sections are not forced/the same every playthrough in the way they are in Mass Effect; that's a creative decision on ME's part but perhaps one worth criticising, but again, that's getting into a wider discussion about whether or not ME suffered from disappointingly low ambitions

Well, in Mass Effect they build up settings and enemies through the story and you encounter them in the gameplay.

Games like Half-Life or System Shock, while being more in-game, are using other forms of restricting the player to tell important bits, but I don't think that would fit Mass Effect very well. Mass Effect has so many big moments that need big cutscenes. Seeing everything from the player's perspective would leave out too much in that setting. Half-Life and System Shock is intimate personal stories, Mass Effect is a space opera.

I didn't mean it wasn't fair to criticize Mass Effect's story, I meant it's not enough to ruin the series, that guy you linked is not seeing the forest for the trees. Mass Effect leans very heavily into the story and setting, and it matters a ton if it's good or not, but it's not fair to use a few shortcomings to say the entire story is bad and that it means the game is bad as a whole. The Leviathan arch is fucking great, many of the characters are great. In general, the standard of writing is beyond the average game. The citadel is a cool idea. The Reapers are a great idea.

 

[Falksi]

Do you think flying a sprite into a dot is the same as taking cover behind an object and shooting at aliens in 3D? your bias believes it's the same because you grew up with it. But in reality, people have moved on.

You are like a guy using Morse code to communicate and argue that Morse code allows you to be more complex and nuanced. Not really seeing that you only think so because you love it and grew up with it.

Charming the opposition and changing forms in an old 2D game like that isn't fun anymore. In newer games, you can actually do it, and see it, it's not just blobs changing colors and simple menus.

Again, this is just a statement that shows you to be a casualized retard which values visual spectacle over gameplay depth.

You and your ilk are literally why the "awesome button" philosophy was invented.

 

[Machocruz]

I find the attitude that games can be better or worse on account of their mechanical systems irritating.

The primary lens through which most people on gaming forums look at games these days is genre-centrism, and what is a game genre (to your average IGN reader at least) but a compound of mechanics.

This is a kind of revisionism itself, because up until a certain time people didn't regard or relate to games in terms of Genre. That Blaster Master had similarities to Metroid was more of a side note, we liked it because it was (to your point) cool to drive on walls in a tank, and because the graphic design was cool, and the entire concept of a subterranean world hidden down a hole was cool and imagine the possibilities because human beings have been imagining what's at the center of the Earth for millenia because it's cool if there were monsters and secrets down there. Not because it was the new tanksroguevania, which is how people look at things now, how much the game did the genre and sheeit. It's about whether you can backtrack and get the double jump and get to the new area and find the slide and get through the hole and find the red thing that opens the red doors/blocks and you have to have a double jump and a dash because that's the genre and it's weird if you don't but also wow Dark Souls is a metroidvania and this other game is like a metroidlitelike and WHO GIVES A FUCK? I got into video games largely because of Castlevania, because the music was mind-blowing for a video game and halloween shit was cool to me, not because "Wow this is really creating/revolutionizing/defining the side-scrolling monster whipping genre! I need more of those mechanics by God!" And Contra to a lesser extent, for the same reasons except replace 'haunted house' with 'Arnold/Rambo fighting Aliens shit'. Maybe I was a fan of the Konami genre. I'm sure someone on Resetera thinks there is such a thing and that that's very important.

Recently saw an exchange where someone noted that the N64 had a limited library and inferior-to-PS1 sales and a kind of rebuttal was "yeahbut it had genre-defining games!" Or you'll often hear about how so-and-so created a whole subgenre. So what? Is there something inherently valuable about that? All you need to "create" a genre, a game genre at least, is a thing and certain number of people to imitate that thing. But just because people imitate that thing, does it mean that thing was meritorious in the first place? For that to be a convincing stance, we have to believe that people in general are possessed of good taste, maybe even sound mind, which goes against the general worldview of the Codex. But if a bunch of mental and cultural defectives decide to imitate a game, would the first thought be "well that game must be doing something right if all these retards are copying it!"? Probably on Reddit it would.

And this is a form of that slave thinking. They are enslaved to prevailing narratives, and enslaved to the dopamine hit of a game and want more of that hit and the easiest common denominator they can see to come upon a similar hit is by looking at genre first and foremost, because having not thought about games past the prevailing memes and narratives and conventions, they think THAT is the primary source of the effect.

Reasonable Person Enjoys a Game: "Man i just played this awesome game called Metroid. The suit and the aliens and the missiles are so cool. Wonder if there are other games so cool?"

Redditor/Twitch chatter/Youtube commenter: "You should play [REDACTED] my guy. It's an awesome game in that genre"

Normal: "Wow really? Never heard of it. You play as a cool space adventurer with a cool space suit?"

Reddit cuck: "No, you play as a medieval guy with a cone hat, but..."

Normal: "Can I get different space weapons?"

Genreslave: "No, there is sword but..."

Normal: "I can explore an underground space planet labyrinth?"

Dysgenic: "Also no, b-

Normal: "I thought you said it's a similar cool game?"

Memeslave: "It is. It's a METROIDVAAANIAAAHHMCUMMING!"

The genreslavescentrists (i.e. the average "hardcore" gamer today ) are not looking to engage with a vision, a personal work, an idea, an aesthetic, an idiosyncracy (like not having a map or wall jump in any metroidesque game, ever again), they are consumoids looking to constantly consume from an endless fountain of that thing that must have been because of that genre (and thus those now-codified mechanics), because that's the meme that explains how things go. But maybe there's a reason that "RE with dinosaurs" didn't catch on like actual RE, despite supposedly being the same mecha- I mean genre from the same people, to the confusion of the average Youtube comments section. Maybe it's not about 'finding thing go into thing-shaped hole for me open door, now dinosaur!' Maybe it's simply 'like more zombie blow'em head with shotgun,' or some other thing that has nothing to do with but-it's-mora-surviva-horra.

 

[Mountain]

I find this attitude that old games are automatically outdated, and therefore get worse with time, really irritating (almost triggering). It doesn't match with my experience at all when trying old games. Sure, there is a cutoff point somewhere in the past where the hardware limits were too strict. But even then, I wouldn't say those games get worse with time.
This attitude must come from people who are more interested in the underlying tech than the games themselves. They're arguably not gamers but more like tech enthusiasts. And it's always been a big part of game discussion. Just look at reviews from the late 90s when 3D engines made huge leaps like Doom, Quake or Unreal. These were all praised first and foremost for their "realism" and graphical fidelity. And from the viewpoint of a tech enthusiast, it's pretty obvious. Why would you waste time with old games, old engines, and low-res 2D sprites, when you can play the latest hyper-realistic 3D rendered AAA wonder? Like Mountain here, who says Star Control 2 looks like shit. It's been a few years since I played it (maybe 2018?), but I remember it looking pretty nice with the alien drawings and also the unique text fonts for each species. That's something I still haven't seen other games do, btw, except Undertale. I found it just as immersive as Mass Effect (I have a soft spot for the first game because I'm an astronomy nerd). And then you have the galaxy map where you can see wars and events unfold in real-time, whereas the map in Mass Effect is completely static. Those games could have benefited from a time mechanic like in SC2.

Anyway, I'm just rambling. Gamers who are actually interested in the game part of video games won't care about graphical fidelity. The success of indie games pretty much proved this a long time ago.

I'm not saying that old games are automatically outdated. I am not saying that old games are bad because they are more technologically simplistic. That is nonsense.

I am saying that some people have a bias towards older games because they grew up with them, and adopt a "modern games are trash" attitude to anything new. Which is what I was trying to push back on initially.

People overrate games from their youth. But a lot of those games have barebones gameplay and rely on text and spreadsheet systems and old game design. Some of that is dated. And people on this board pretend it's "depth far beyond modern gaming that only non-retards and non-fags understand".

Fighting in a 3D world and fighting in a 2D world is different.

Star Control 2 looks like shit, I stand by that. While there might be some cool unique fonts and alien drawings and some good parts that look nice, compared to most games of that time, it's ugly:

 

[Ol' Willy]

Why would developers make old 2D sprites on constrained hardware? modern bicycle manufacturers can't make wooden bicycles either.

70% of the work is not done for you lol. Building new gameplay systems in 3D is a complicated task, and putting it into a 3D world is a massive task. You are talking about indie games that use pre-built features, but most triple-A games have to recode mechanics and systems, and everything they do has to be vetted through all the other mechanics and systems in the game.

Sprite based engines demand less power on the user side, but are more difficult to work with.

3D engines allow a simple model import, you hook hitboxes and animations and you're basically done.

There's a reason why people who can work with classic Fallout engine number in around 20 but the amount of 3D import mods into bethesda engines litters many modding sites.

Stop sprouting bullshit retard

 

[JC'sBarber]

I view 2D, sprite-based games the same way I view black and white films. For a time, it was all we had and artists became an expert at the medium. Then color film came around, and it was new and innovative. Artists were less experienced and there were some growing pains as a result, but eventually it became the standard and it replaced black and white film entirely. Now that 3D graphics have matured a ton, it rightfully replaced the old 2D sprite stuff. You can do a lot more with 3D, it's more immersive and allowed for more genres and styles of play to be born. I do not lament the death of 2D sprite graphics one bit. It needed to happen if gaming was to continue to innovate and grow.

 

[Mountain]

Do you think flying a sprite into a dot is the same as taking cover behind an object and shooting at aliens in 3D? your bias believes it's the same because you grew up with it. But in reality, people have moved on.

You are like a guy using Morse code to communicate and argue that Morse code allows you to be more complex and nuanced. Not really seeing that you only think so because you love it and grew up with it.

Charming the opposition and changing forms in an old 2D game like that isn't fun anymore. In newer games, you can actually do it, and see it, it's not just blobs changing colors and simple menus.

Again, this is just a statement that shows you to be a casualized retard which values visual spectacle over gameplay depth.

You and your ilk are literally why the "awesome button" philosophy was invented.

It's quite ironic that you of all people call anyone a casual when you are so out-of-touch with gaming in general.

Star Control is essentially a kids' game today. It's stuff that kids play on flash sites and roblox, controlling a rocket around and shooting various blobs.

As games changed, people changed with them, playing more and more different stuff. You never did, not realizing that 2D rocket ships doing a few abilities ain't that deep anymore.

It can still be fun, and I don't care if people still like it. I think it's cool that you still play it, but this "depth" of yours is a simple thing.

Why would developers make old 2D sprites on constrained hardware? modern bicycle manufacturers can't make wooden bicycles either.

70% of the work is not done for you lol. Building new gameplay systems in 3D is a complicated task, and putting it into a 3D world is a massive task. You are talking about indie games that use pre-built features, but most triple-A games have to recode mechanics and systems, and everything they do has to be vetted through all the other mechanics and systems in the game.

Sprite based engines demand less power on the user side, but are more difficult to work with.

3D engines allow a simple model import, you hook hitboxes and animations and you're basically done.

There's a reason why people who can work with classic Fallout engine number in around 20 but the amount of 3D import mods into bethesda engines litters many modding sites.

Stop sprouting bullshit retard

"You hook hitboxes and animations and you're basically done". What a fuck are you on about? do you think they made Uncharted by slapping in a 3D model from some basic asset store?

The reason why more people mod Bethesda games is because they are more popular.

 

[Necrensha]

The reason why more people mod Bethesda games is because they are more popular.

Bethesda makes it extremely easy to mod their games, anyone can do it. That's why, the popularity is a result and not the reason.

 

[Silverfish]

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't spas out and call everyone a retard?

Why would you want to participate on a board where people don't do that?