Podcast about Next Generation games with Todd Howard

[OverrideB1]

Hmmm so, because there is a vague possibility that G3 might just meet some of the criterea that VD looks for in a game, he's not allowed to laud it just because he hasn't played it yet? Seems to me that that was all that the ESF did with Oblivion -- based entirely on what the developers said about the game -- before they got a chance to play it.

I get very tired of people telling me what I can and cannot think based on whether or not I've done X. I'm a reasonably smart guy who can make up my own mind based on available information -- I don't need some asshat coming along to tell me what to think because whaaa, you haven't played X yet so how can you say such mean/nice things about it.

It's time some people got a freaking reality check -- NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE SAME THINGS YOU LIKE AND (here's another shocker for you) NOT EVERYONE THINKS ALIKE. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what I should and shouldn't think dependant on whether or not I've done something? I'm pretty fucking certain that hitting myself in the face with an 80lb sledgehammer is a dumb idea - do I actually need to try it out just so that I can say that?

G3 looks interesting and, while the develoipers do seem to have gone the graphical-whore route, there seems to be rather more attention paid to role-playing elements than some recent games I could mention. So, based on what information has been released -- which is exactly the same information that you, Vault Dweller, and everyone else has -- I've made a decision that G3 is worth keeping track of because it looks to be a far better game than most anything else coming out/recently released that ain't an indie game. My decision, my opinion. If you don't like it -- tough shit

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Hmmm so, because there is a vague possibility that G3 might just meet some of the criterea that VD looks for in a game, he's not allowed to laud it just because he hasn't played it yet? Seems to me that that was all that the ESF did with Oblivion -- based entirely on what the developers said about the game -- before they got a chance to play it.

I get very tired of people telling me what I can and cannot think based on whether or not I've done X. I'm a reasonably smart guy who can make up my own mind based on available information -- I don't need some asshat coming along to tell me what to think because whaaa, you haven't played X yet so how can you say such mean/nice things about it.

It's time some people got a freaking reality check -- NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE SAME THINGS YOU LIKE AND (here's another shocker for you) NOT EVERYONE THINKS ALIKE. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what I should and shouldn't think dependant on whether or not I've done something? I'm pretty fucking certain that hitting myself in the face with an 80lb sledgehammer is a dumb idea - do I actually need to try it out just so that I can say that?

G3 looks interesting and, while the develoipers do seem to have gone the graphical-whore route, there seems to be rather more attention paid to role-playing elements than some recent games I could mention. So, based on what information has been released -- which is exactly the same information that you, Vault Dweller, and everyone else has -- I've made a decision that G3 is worth keeping track of because it looks to be a far better game than most anything else coming out/recently released that ain't an indie game. My decision, my opinion. If you don't like it -- tough shit

Very true, as long as it's also applied to in reverse.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I played the previous TES games too. I liked DF, and MW. Did that thought made OB good? Uhu no.

DF was made by a completely different team and even company (before ZeniMax bought Beth), so that doesn't count. MW was the first and vital step toward Oblivion: watered/dumbed down content, focus on graphics, multiplatform, etc. With Oblivion Bethesda had merely developed the established by MW concept further.

You're so deep into this shit.

*rolls eyes*

As long as I haven't played G3 yet, I'm not going to crave all over it like you do.

Do whatever the fuck you want. Who cares?

Facist.

Dick

Pull out that fist you got upto G3 devs their asses, probably just because you had an interview with them and they gave you the answers you wanted. Poor you.

Actually, they didn't, but I'm sure that you know better. And yes, if developers agree to have an interview with me, I worship them and a game they work on. It was very perceptive of you to figure that out.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

So what, teams change all the time, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. Track record, as I have said before is in the eye of the beholder. Look at the credits for G1 and G2

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/gothic/credits
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/gothic-ii/credits

Look at "Game design": only one name among four in common.

The truth is you liked both Gothics so you say track record. Nevertheless you don't want to accept that people see TES2 and TES3 as a positive track record for the same reason. Sure there were changes, but not all were bad, in some of our humble opinions, and sorry to say, I still think MW is a better game than DF. Despite that I think O is a worse game than either. Is that so hard to accept? I don't wish for that to happen in Gothic's case any more than I did for TES, but track record still means shit.

Anyway, my original comment/link was mainly a tease. Glad it worked

 

[St. Toxic]

Do you want to lose your penis?

I was voicing the AGEIA corp. Symbolically, I said "We're smart, you're dumb" in a way that made me, the corp, look retarded.

 

[Claw]

Look at "Game design": only one name among four in common.

Eye of the beholder indeed. Mike Hoge has always been lead designer, and what about Björn Pankratz and Horst Dworczak? OK, so Horst is credited as lead artist now.

There have been changes in Piranha Bytes, but there is also a consistent core team, particularly in terms of game design and project lead.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So what, teams change all the time, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.

First, it always matters. Compare Fallout to Fallout 2, KOTOR to KOTOR 2, Daggerfall to Morrowind, etc. Second, I meant more than just people. The vision, the goals, motivation, atmosphere, etc - all that counts too. As I'm sure you are aware of, the Daggerfall team made the game they wanted to make, despite the publisher's wishes. They *misled* the publisher. The game was more important than how much it would sell and how much money everyone would make. I hope I don't need to explain how different this approach is from what Neo-Bethesda does these days (see the podcast interview)

Track record, as I have said before is in the eye of the beholder.

Uh, it actually isn't. That's why they actually call it "track record" and not "here is what some people think..."

Look at "Game design": only one name among four in common.

And it happened to be the lead designer.

The truth is you liked both Gothics so you say track record.

The truth is I didn't like them that much. The truth is I'm not a big fan of the series. The truth is there is plenty that I dislike about the series. And last, but not the least, the truth is that my personal preferences and likes/dislikes don't stop me from seeing good & bad sides and recognizing direction of the development of both G3 and the series in general. That's where the track record kicks in.

Nevertheless you don't want to accept that people see TES2 and TES3 as a positive track record for the same reason. Sure there were changes, but not all were bad, in some of our humble opinions, and sorry to say, I still think MW is a better game than DF.

Better game in what way? Anyway, for the record, I don't see any positive, other than the graphics, changes from DF to MW and OB. If you do, good for you. If you do and want to talk about it, please present your position with facts and arguments and let's talk about it.

Despite that I think O is a worse game than either. Is that so hard to accept? I don't wish for that to happen in Gothic's case any more than I did for TES, but track record still means shit.

In your stubborn opinion. Just like you hoped till the end that Oblivion would be a decent game because you chose to ignore the track record and why Bethesda is making such a game.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

My point is, teams always change to a smaller or greater extent and the fact has, as far as I can see, little predictive value. A a track record is great only until it is broken. Take Ultima as a classic example.

I fully expect G3 to be a great game, I saw little to convince me otherwise, but I don't think "track record" is a very safe ground to tread, especially with the current forces at work in the industry.

 

[Blahblah Talks]

Better game in what way? Anyway, for the record, I don't see any positive, other than the graphics, changes from DF to MW and OB.

For me, the fact that MW was hand-crafted and DF was (mostly) randomly generated was the make/break issue. I tried playing DF, but after going to the 15th town that looked exactly the same, and having a pint in the 200th pub named "The X and Y", I decided to uninstall. Perhaps I didn't give it enough of a shot. *shrug*

In MW though, when I travelled from one side of the island to the other, I truly felt like I was in a different place. The variety of flora and architecture was a big plus for me. There may be other areas where I would prefer MW to DF, but to be honest, all that I can remember about DF is that it all looked the same.

 

[Crichton]

Better game in what way? Anyway, for the record, I don't see any positive, other than the graphics, changes from DF to MW and OB. If you do, good for you. If you do and want to talk about it, please present your position with facts and arguments and let's talk about it.

It's tangental, but for what it's worth, I'd say they succeeded in making combat more "visceral". OB is a lot closer to a real sword-fighting game like jedi outcast than DF/MW which are basically on par w/ NWN. For a game that only has three gameplay elements (fighting, exporation and character/environment interaction), that's hugely important. Of course at the same time, they deep-sixed the exploration....

Fighting through a dungeon in OB involves the reflexes enough to make it vastly superior to anything found in the previous two games. It also does a better job of making differently armed/built characters fight differently with increased NPC non-direct-damage spell use.

I'd say the big thing that OB really lacks in comparison to DF and (to a lesser extent) MW is the pacing of the story. The whole thing's so disjointed (no chapters, wild time osciliations, bouncing around the map for no reason) that it creates a serious lack. I think most people would also put forward that the game world in OB reacts to the character-build less specifically in OB than in DF (hard to say in comparison to MW), but for me, in all three games, the only thing that I really noticed the reaction in was combat. The lack of dialog makes the whole world seem like paste anway.

edit: I can't type

 

[Romanian_Dude2005]

Better game in what way? Anyway, for the record, I don't see any positive, other than the graphics, changes from DF to MW and OB. If you do, good for you. If you do and want to talk about it, please present your position with facts and arguments and let's talk about it.

Morrowind had a much better adventure/exploration feel in it. In DF you couldn't reach dungeons or locations without using fast travel because of the vast distances, while in Morrowind explorating was a pleasure because of the unique land and written directions.

Also IMO Morrowind had alot of depth, posibly more then any other RPG I've seen except PS:T, the concentration upon lore and the fictional culture of the island made the game somewhat imersive for me.

And lastly Morrowind had a greater focus upon skills, DF didn't have dice rolls, however even if Morrowind implemented them badly, it still managed to make the skills very involving and important. The bad part to it was the there wasn't any challenge to use those skills and the fact that there were only 27 of them.


Don't get me rong, I like DF more then Morrowind, but MW had some improovements, it wasn't a total letdown like Oblivion

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

So what, teams change all the time, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.

First, it always matters. Compare Fallout to Fallout 2, KOTOR to KOTOR 2, Daggerfall to Morrowind, etc. Second, I meant more than just people. The vision, the goals, motivation, atmosphere, etc - all that counts too. As I'm sure you are aware of, the Daggerfall team made the game they wanted to make, despite the publisher's wishes. They *misled* the publisher. The game was more important than how much it would sell and how much money everyone would make. I hope I don't need to explain how different this approach is from what Neo-Bethesda does these days (see the podcast interview)

That's a bit amorphous. Well, of course teams make games. That's a no brainer. But teams always change and sometimes the sequel is better than earlier games (e.g. Ultima VII), sometimes not. And of course since we have different tastes or weigh things differntly, the result is necessarily in the eye of the beholder.

Track record, as I have said before is in the eye of the beholder.

Uh, it actually isn't. That's why they actually call it "track record" and not "here is what some people think..."

I'm sorry but that's simply a fact. People that value graphics and action over everything still think Bethesda has a great track record right now, they are all happy little bunnies. Are they "wrong"? Course not. We may not like them because there are so many of them, and thanks to that nobody makes the games WE would like to play any more (well crazy indie guys like you may ). What you probably mean is "track record as a classic RPG" - but that definition and moreover its importance is really mostly one that is determined by your personal preferences. It hasn't escaped your notice that there is NO consensus on the RPG definition. And even if there were, there would still be people who wouldn't like it.

Look at "Game design": only one name among four in common.

And it happened to be the lead designer.

Ken Rolston was lead designer on both MW and O. Todd Howard was a designer for DF, and project lead for MW and O. Hasn't helped.

The truth is you liked both Gothics so you say track record.

The truth is I didn't like them that much. The truth is I'm not a big fan of the series. The truth is there is plenty that I dislike about the series. And last, but not the least, the truth is that my personal preferences and likes/dislikes don't stop me from seeing good & bad sides and recognizing direction of the development of both G3 and the series in general. That's where the track record kicks in.

Hard to guess from your comments. So you see only good trends in G1 to G2? I thought the story and setting, for one, was better in G1.

Nevertheless you don't want to accept that people see TES2 and TES3 as a positive track record for the same reason. Sure there were changes, but not all were bad, in some of our humble opinions, and sorry to say, I still think MW is a better game than DF.

Better game in what way? Anyway, for the record, I don't see any positive, other than the graphics, changes from DF to MW and OB. If you do, good for you. If you do and want to talk about it, please present your position with facts and arguments and let's talk about it.

Despite that I think O is a worse game than either. Is that so hard to accept? I don't wish for that to happen in Gothic's case any more than I did for TES, but track record still means shit.

In your stubborn opinion. Just like you hoped till the end that Oblivion would be a decent game because you chose to ignore the track record and why Bethesda is making such a game.

Agggh and here we go again. OK, here are (again) the main things that to me made TES have a great track record until Ob.

- Outdoors exploration was vastly improved from DF to MW. It was something I desperately wanted to do in DF, but that was very boring there. MW offered varying landscapes, allowed you to actually discover places on your own. MW had "hard to get to" areas like "red mountain" and dungeons with varying difficulty (e.g. daedric vs tombs/caves) compared to DF's uniformly scaled dungeons.

- Lore. The depth and amount of backround and lore was immensely increased with MW. The whole dwemer mystery and the various accounts of red mountain, the dissent in the Temple, the ashlander history - all that added oodles of reading fun for me and made Vvardenfell come alive in a way that the Illiac bay never did.

- Faction design. Despite the fact that quest design fell short, I liked the shift to a "storylined" faction model as opposed to the "quest dispenser" factions in DF. There were some nice interactions (great houses, fighter guuild vs. thieves guild), and it resulted in a lively picture of faction conflict and politics that was absent in DF.

- Artistic and design creativity. Morrowind was really an achievement in unique design ideas and a refreshing departure from standard "medival" fantasy.

- Departure from too much generated content. Although a big achievement, I found DF's generated world eventually detracted from the experience.

I am well aware of all the things that were bad trends too: the diminished character creation system and skill lists, the loss of many features like horses, banks, languages. Loss of "random" quests. Etc. But the above are the reason why the end result was, to me personally, an improvement over DF. If you want to call that stubborn, go ahead.

 

[elander_]

GBG you forget about gameplay. Morrowind gameplay is realy poor. So poor that they decided to turn Oblivion into an hack-and-slash feast adventure game.

I don't realy agree with you about Daggerfall dungeons. They were considered the ultimate 3d dungeon crawling experience with traps, pits, puzzles, etc. They also vary in size and theme. Each dungeon has a code that specifies what kind of loot and foes will be found inside. There are natural caves, abandoned mines, abadoned fortresses and castles, etc Then you have the hand-crafted dungeons for the main quest and certain special quests all have unique layouts and architecture.

Oblivion devs tried to imitate this but the result was very poor. The traps are more spectacular fxs than puzzling. They tried to use the leveled foe/items system but theres a big difference in implementation. In Daggerfall you can obtain some very cool loot offseted way above your level if you work for it and you will sometimes find monsters that are too overpowering just to remenber that you aren't the most powerful thing walking the land. In Oblivion the monotony of the auto-balance system was one of the biggest complaints. With the great AI, Ob devs did a worst job balancing the game than they did with the crapy tech used in Daggerfall and this tells a lot about them. No mater how much you try to soften this subject Todd Howard is not Ted Peterson and a change in vision maters a lot.

I doubt they can ever grasp the inteligent design that was used in Fallout and the great AI won't help them in anything because this team lacks a lot in game design knowledge. Time will tell if i am wrong and they actualy made a good effort trying to learn about Fallout but i doubt it. I got the picture with Oblivion right after MSFD was making those clueless Tod Howard boy speeches about linerarity and dialog and i don't see these guys with a great passion for games but more about sucking the cook to the casual gamer and get as much juice as they can.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But teams always change and sometimes the sequel is better than earlier games... . And of course since we have different tastes or weigh things differntly, the result is necessarily in the eye of the beholder.

No arguing here as that wasn't the point. Sure, some people feel that FO2 is a better game, and some people think that KOTOR 2 is a huge improvement. Such opinions are subjective, the fact that different teams produce VERY different games isn't.

I'm sorry but that's simply a fact. People that value graphics and action over everything still think Bethesda has a great track record right now, they are all happy little bunnies. Are they "wrong"?

*sigh* You are confusing track record, which includes the focus on graphics and action with personal opinions.

What you probably mean is "track record as a classic RPG" - but that definition and moreover its importance is really mostly one that is determined by your personal preferences.

No, I meant track record overall, which tells you *everything* about the company, from what they think an RPG is to how they develop games and what's important to them to how buggy their games are. Everything.

THEN you pay attention to what's important to YOU in a game. For example, for some people Troika games meant bugs and issues. For some people they meant dialogue trees and role-playing. ToEE did affect the previous track record, but added much to it as well.

Ken Rolston was lead designer on both MW and O.

And it shows.

Todd Howard was a designer for DF...

*A* designer. They should have fired that dumb bitch.

...and project lead for MW and O. Hasn't helped.

And it shows.

Hard to guess from your comments. So you see only good trends in G1 to G2? I thought the story and setting, for one, was better in G1.

I didn't say that. I see all trends, as one should. The G1 setting was better, more consistent, but overall the trend continued and they didn't turn G2 into a fairy land.

- Outdoors exploration ...
- Artistic and design creativity...

Agree, but both elements are related to graphics.

- Lore. The depth and amount of backround and lore was immensely increased with MW.

It was? I thought that DF had an impressive collection of books, but perhaps I was mistaken.

- Faction design. Despite the fact that quest design fell short, I liked the shift to a "storylined" faction model as opposed to the "quest dispenser" factions in DF. There were some nice interactions (great houses, fighter guuild vs. thieves guild), and it resulted in a lively picture of faction conflict and politics that was absent in DF.

Yes and No. The faction design had never-realized potential, which is a pity. DF's factions were bland, but the unofficial factions seeking the Totem (the Underking, Gortwog, King Eadwyre, Queen Akorithi, the King of Worms) are nicely done, including the final choice in the game and the consequences.

- Departure from too much generated content. Although a big achievement, I found DF's generated world eventually detracted from the experience.

Works only if the handcrafted content is actually better.

But the above are the reason why the end result was, to me personally, an improvement over DF.

It aint much, just so you know, but I'm very happy for you.

 

[denizsi]

OB is a lot closer to a real sword-fighting game like jedi outcast

Is this a joke? Aren't you mistaking twitchiness and that "active" feeling of the combat for realism? In O, you swing and no matter what the shit, you definitely hit as long as he (opponent) is within reach. You and he attack each other at the same time and there isn't even some kind of parrying or deflecting blows, clashing of the weapons. Fuck, even Diablo had better; when you were hit, your avatar's action was interrupted!

And there is the shitty blocking, which really isn't blocking. Instead, it only absorbs some of the damage, and you still could die even if you blocked each and every single move. Complete retardness. If all it takes to make combat "more realistic" for you is twitchiness and fast-paced blows, that "dynamic feeling", I suggest you don't use the words realism or realistic regarding games.

And Jedi Outcast? While it was a good game, you certainly didn't die upon receiving one single lightsaber hit. How is that realistic in SW? Despite that, you still shouldn't compare JO to O, for obvious reasons imo.

DF had the most realistic and most successfull combat mechanics among the TES games. When your character deflected or blocked attacks, it was for real. It's realistic mechanics behind the scenes vs. shitty mechanics on spotlight. DF had realistic RPG mechanics, O has arcade mechanics.

DF didn't have dice rolls

We have a lot of jokers on this thread today!

About that track record debate; I really wonder what might have been different if Julian LeFay, along with Ted, was still on board, and had the say on things..

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

But teams always change and sometimes the sequel is better than earlier games... . And of course since we have different tastes or weigh things differntly, the result is necessarily in the eye of the beholder.

No arguing here as that wasn't the point. Sure, some people feel that FO2 is a better game, and some people think that KOTOR 2 is a huge improvement. Such opinions are subjective, the fact that different teams produce VERY different games isn't.

I'm sorry but that's simply a fact. People that value graphics and action over everything still think Bethesda has a great track record right now, they are all happy little bunnies. Are they "wrong"?

*sigh* You are confusing track record, which includes the focus on graphics and action with personal opinions.

No. Track records in the abstract may be objective, but what they mean to people is as subjective as their opinions on games, as you note below. A company with an excellent track record for a graphics whore may have a bad track record for someone with different tastes. So when you expect Gothic 3 to be a good game based on track record, it means nothing but "the past games showed a good trend according to my standards/preferences. And all the "overall" stuff really has no bearing on it.

What you probably mean is "track record as a classic RPG" - but that definition and moreover its importance is really mostly one that is determined by your personal preferences.

No, I meant track record overall, which tells you *everything* about the company, from what they think an RPG is to how they develop games and what's important to them to how buggy their games are. Everything.

THEN you pay attention to what's important to YOU in a game. For example, for some people Troika games meant bugs and issues. For some people they meant dialogue trees and role-playing. ToEE did affect the previous track record, but added much to it as well.

You are separating what is really a single process, assembling the facts and evaluating them. When you tell people you looked at "track record" you have oblviously already payed attention to whats important to you.
So I wonder why you think its objective for you to think that Gothic has a good track record (and I actually agree) but think I am mistaken when I say that FOR ME, TES also had one and that that was a strong incentive for me to expect another good game, just like you do for Gothic 3. That's why I say the whole track record thing is in the eyes of the beholder, and just doesn't cut it as a "shut up and realize the TRUTH, stupid git" catch-all argument as you like to use it. "Track record, stupid!!!!"

Ken Rolston was lead designer on both MW and O.

And it shows.

Todd Howard was a designer for DF...

*A* designer. They should have fired that dumb bitch.

...and project lead for MW and O. Hasn't helped.

And it shows.

Both of which is beside the point. As you know there is plenty of people who liked MW and dislike OB, and even the other way round. And why should they have fired Todd, when DF was such a good game? The point is, neither does personal continuity guarantee continuity in the product nor does changing the team always guarantee that the game will be entirely different (take the CIV games, I think they had various project leads, but they haven't really changed much).

Hard to guess from your comments. So you see only good trends in G1 to G2? I thought the story and setting, for one, was better in G1.

I didn't say that. I see all trends, as one should. The G1 setting was better, more consistent, but overall the trend continued and they didn't turn G2 into a fairy land.

- Outdoors exploration ...
- Artistic and design creativity...

Agree, but both elements are related to graphics.

No, neither have much to do with graphics per se, not in the "flashy to wow" sense it's usually understood. The exploration factor is mostly a design thing, not a graphics one. It has to do with the scaling and the world design, more than anything. And creativity != shiny graphics. Oblivion has plenty shiny Gfx, but much less creativity. Gfx is a superficial presentation thing, style, design, art, creativity actually transport game content and have a part in creating a coherent and interesting gaming experience.

- Lore. The depth and amount of backround and lore was immensely increased with MW.

It was? I thought that DF had an impressive collection of books, but perhaps I was mistaken.

DF was great, but there was nothing in the scope and detail of what MW had for fleshing out the local culture and history of Morrowind.

- Faction design. Despite the fact that quest design fell short, I liked the shift to a "storylined" faction model as opposed to the "quest dispenser" factions in DF. There were some nice interactions (great houses, fighter guuild vs. thieves guild), and it resulted in a lively picture of faction conflict and politics that was absent in DF.

Yes and No. The faction design had never-realized potential, which is a pity. DF's factions were bland, but the unofficial factions seeking the Totem (the Underking, Gortwog, King Eadwyre, Queen Akorithi, the King of Worms) are nicely done, including the final choice in the game and the consequences.

I was talking about joinable factions / guilds. Consequences? They are narrative only, or did I miss something?

- Departure from too much generated content. Although a big achievement, I found DF's generated world eventually detracted from the experience.

Works only if the handcrafted content is actually better.

Which I obviously think is the case, or I wouldn't have put it here, don't you think?

But the above are the reason why the end result was, to me personally, an improvement over DF.

It aint much, just so you know, but I'm very happy for you.

I have seen more coherent arguments from you too, buddy! Well you asked me what I think is a positive track record. I allready know that there is none for you. Which just proves my point.

 

[Crichton]

And Jedi Outcast? While it was a good game, you certainly didn't die upon receiving one single lightsaber hit. How is that realistic in SW? Despite that, you still shouldn't compare JO to O, for obvious reasons imo.

If all it takes to make combat "more realistic" for you is twitchiness and fast-paced blows, that "dynamic feeling", I suggest you don't use the words realism or realistic regarding games.

If you'll actually read the sentence, you'll notice that I didn't use either. I said a "real sword fighting game", not a "realistic sword fighting game". Since you're obviously not a native speaker, I'll make allowances, but don't fly off the handle just because you don't understand english, it's not my fault.

And Jedi Outcast? While it was a good game, you certainly didn't die upon receiving one single lightsaber hit. How is that realistic in SW? Despite that, you still shouldn't compare JO to O, for obvious reasons imo.

This is irrelevant (see above), but as long as we're on the subject of the verisimilitude of jedi outkast's lightsabre damage model, you might want to think about Luke getting hit by a lightsabre and how that killed him. Oh, wait......

DF had realistic RPG mechanics, O has arcade mechanics.

And which do you think is more appropriate for a game in which you control a single sword fighter?

 

[denizsi]

If you'll actually read the sentence, you'll notice that I didn't use either. I said a "real sword fighting game", not a "realistic sword fighting game". Since you're obviously not a native speaker, I'll make allowances, but don't fly off the handle just because you don't understand english, it's not my fault.

Ok, my bad. I gave in to the tense debate and missed it right there. Otherwise it's not something I would fail to distinguish. I'll be more careful the next time.

This is irrelevant (see above), but as long as we're on the subject of the verisimilitude of jedi outkast's lightsabre damage model, you might want to think about Luke getting hit by a lightsabre and how that killed him. Oh, wait......

Did he receive a complete swing through his abdomen? I didn't think so either. Ok, it's irrelevant anyway.

And which do you think is more appropriate for a game in which you control a single sword fighter?

I still think it's a lot closer to a 3d 1st/3rd person reincarnation of Diablo sword combat than anything in JK Outcast.

 

[Crichton]

Did he receive a complete swing through his abdomen? I didn't think so either. Ok, it's irrelevant anyway.

You said a single hit. It's certainly true that not every hit is lethal in the JK games, but a swing directly through the torso will kill anyone who isn't a boss, using that green jedi damage shield power (in academy) or wearing "KORTOSIS ARMUH!". If every hit were lethal, luck would begin to trump skilll, which is why they put the damage shield in academy, luck was already too important in outcast. There are plenty of scratches that don't kill, but if Luke can have his entire hand cut off (far more severe than any gut wound) and live, that's by no means out of line.

I still think it's a lot closer to a 3d 1st/3rd person reincarnation of Diablo sword combat than anything in JK Outcast.

I've only played the demo of Diablo I, so I'm no judge, but the reason I catagorize OB's combat model in with other action games as opposed to the real-time click-on-shit model of diablo/RT arcanum/divine divinity/NWN/Morrowind/Daggerfall is the need for timing.

Combat in Jedi Outcast/Academy, Oblivious and the gothic games (among others) relies on being able to anticipate the timing of your opponent's attacks/blocks and get in under one of them. The system used in Jedi academy is a lot more sophisticated than the one used in OB, but then again OB's system is a lot more sophisticated than the gothic games, not everyone can be a winner.

 

[mrhappy1991]

Todd Howard; "We really enjoy having the hardware drive things!"
And this guy is the executive producer of Fallout 3.

what I can't believe is that this guy actualy worked on Daggerfall, either Zenimax is writting his speeches or his IQ droped over the years

he actually worked on daggerfall? I thought he was just an errand boy or something back then

 

[denizsi]

I've only played the demo of Diablo I, so I'm no judge, but the reason I catagorize OB's combat model in with other action games as opposed to the real-time click-on-shit model of diablo/RT arcanum/divine divinity/NWN/Morrowind/Daggerfall is the need for timing.

Alright. I've been considering the whole thing from a logical standpoint, not from how it actually plays out.

he actually worked on daggerfall?

Yes ( he even worked on Future Shock and SkyNET as producer and 'a' designer ), and he apparently hated every minute of it as it shows now.

 

[elander_]

DF was great, but there was nothing in the scope and detail of what MW had for fleshing out the local culture and history of Morrowind.

That was because the scope was to portrait the politics of the noble and the events that lead to the actual configuration of Daggerfall political map. There is much in the scope of politics that matched Morrowind politics prety.

http://til.gamingsource.net/tsod/df_narrative.shtml

Each game has it's virtues in terms of lore and both rock compared to Oblivion. Morrowind is mostly dependent of MK and KR contribution. With KR hands tied and MK not working for Beth anymore i think it was predictable what Oblivion would be. They coudn't even figure out that the vegetation around cyrodill capital city was mostly jungle from reading the lore.

- Faction design. Despite the fact that quest design fell short, I liked the shift to a "storylined" faction model as opposed to the "quest dispenser" factions in DF. There were some nice interactions (great houses, fighter guuild vs. thieves guild), and it resulted in a lively picture of faction conflict and politics that was absent in DF.

Yes and No. The faction design had never-realized potential, which is a pity. DF's factions were bland, but the unofficial factions seeking the Totem (the Underking, Gortwog, King Eadwyre, Queen Akorithi, the King of Worms) are nicely done, including the final choice in the game and the consequences.

I was talking about joinable factions / guilds. Consequences? They are narrative only, or did I miss something?
[/quote]

Yup you missed consequences implemented with reputation and faction relationships. Every quets in Daggerfall and mostly the main quest is linked to reputation. You can't even finish the main quest if your rep with the law isn't big enough.

It looks like the biggerst innovation for you is adding storylines. At least you recognize that the game become much more linear and inconsequential or at least i hope so. Perhaps what you realy like to play are action-adventure sandboxes with a good story. That's not a problem at all. The problem is people thinking that role-playing is the same thing as action-adventure. The worlds are usualy different, even when storylines are added (and Fallout had storylines that would tie together) the gameplay is usualy completely different. Game designers need a good undertsanding of gameplay and that's usualy what these new age wanna be designers don't wan't to have the trouble to learn. It's much easier trying to sell bullshit like role-playing is all about a guy in an horse killing things than doing your job.

 

[elander_]

Todd Howard; "We really enjoy having the hardware drive things!"
And this guy is the executive producer of Fallout 3.

what I can't believe is that this guy actualy worked on Daggerfall, either Zenimax is writting his speeches or his IQ droped over the years

he actually worked on daggerfall? I thought he was just an errand boy or something back then

He was "designing" a tiny parcel of those 1000+ random dungeons. That is dungeons are proceduraly generated in a workstation then hand-tweak to check for inconcistencies.

When i look at Oblivion dungeons i can swear those dungeons were made by a realy crappy generation algorithm and not really hand-made. So wheres the big advantage about using hand-made content in Oblivion?

 

[mrhappy1991]

DF was great, but there was nothing in the scope and detail of what MW had for fleshing out the local culture and history of Morrowind.

That was because the scope was to portrait the politics of the noble and the events that lead to the actual configuration of Daggerfall political map. There is much in the scope of politics that matched Morrowind politics prety.

http://til.gamingsource.net/tsod/df_narrative.shtml

Each game has it's virtues in terms of lore and both rock compared to Oblivion. Morrowind is mostly dependent of MK and KR contribution. With KR hands tied and MK not working for Beth anymore i think it was predictable what Oblivion would be. They coudn't even figure out that the vegetation around cyrodill capital city was mostly jungle from reading the lore.

Daggerfall and Mw definately had different ways of portraying politics, but I liked both. The strength of daggerfall's was the complexity and intrigue of the factions being reqional and tied to different orders etc. I think they were actualy planning to have dynamically warring factions and rising and falling relations, but that didnt make it in. Mw set up great conflict and rivalrys between certain factions, and you could ally yourself with one and try to wipe out the opposition. Ob has almost no politics, despite what gavin said about a politicaly fractured world.

 

[Vault Dweller]

DF didn't have dice rolls

We have a lot of jokers on this thread today!

Aint that the truth.

No. Track records in the abstract may be objective, but what they mean to people is as subjective as their opinions on games, as you note below.

Goes without saying.

A company with an excellent track record for a graphics whore may have a bad track record for someone with different tastes.

Didn't I say the same thing earlier (see the Troika example)?

So when you expect Gothic 3 to be a good game based on track record, it means nothing but "the past games showed a good trend according to my standards/preferences.

Sure. What's your point? Have I ever claimed that G3 would be a game everyone will love and cherish?

You are separating what is really a single process, assembling the facts and evaluating them. When you tell people you looked at "track record" you have oblviously already payed attention to whats important to you.

Obviously. And? You are confusing two things: a track record and my opinion on what makes a good game. Someone may look at the Gothic series and lose any interest in G3 because of the combat. Or lack of decent dialogues and dialogue skills.

So I wonder why you think its objective for you to think that Gothic has a good track record (and I actually agree) but think I am mistaken when I say that FOR ME, TES also had one and that that was a strong incentive for me to expect another good game, just like you do for Gothic 3. That's why I say the whole track record thing is in the eyes of the beholder, and just doesn't cut it as a "shut up and realize the TRUTH, stupid git" catch-all argument as you like to use it. "Track record, stupid!!!!"

Context is the key here. Should we expect great dialogues, decent combat, indepth character system? No. Why? The track record. Should we expect multiple quests solutions, goal-based quests, non-linearity, choices & consequences, reactive AI, great atmosphere? Yes. Why? The track record.

Both of which is beside the point. As you know there is plenty of people who liked MW and dislike OB, and even the other way round.

And? What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

And why should they have fired Todd, when DF was such a good game?

*sigh* What's with your logic today? Was Todd directly responsible for the success of DF or for some outstanding features that made the game great?

The point is, neither does personal continuity guarantee continuity in the product nor does changing the team always guarantee that the game will be entirely different (take the CIV games, I think they had various project leads, but they haven't really changed much).

Poor example. The Civ games have changed, and changed a lot. The core remains the same, of course, much like the KOTOR games have the same core - visit planets in random order using your ship as a base, level up, gain companions & itamz, when you visited all the planets, the final planet appears on your map, do some ass-kicking and finish the game; while the design is very different.

No, neither have much to do with graphics per se, not in the "flashy to wow" sense it's usually understood. The exploration factor is mostly a design thing, not a graphics one. It has to do with the scaling and the world design, more than anything. And creativity != shiny graphics. Oblivion has plenty shiny Gfx, but much less creativity. Gfx is a superficial presentation thing, style, design, art, creativity actually transport game content and have a part in creating a coherent and interesting gaming experience.

I didn't say that graphics = flashy, so let's not assume here. The exploration is the graphics factor, and I can prove it by quoting an expert in this field:

Ghan the explorer wrote earlier: "Outdoors exploration was vastly improved from DF to MW. It was something I desperately wanted to do in DF, but that was very boring there. MW offered varying landscapes, allowed you to actually discover places on your own."
I wonder why it was boring. Surely, nothing to do with teh graphics, eh?

I agree that MW also had a much better design that either DF or Oblivion, but that still falls under "graphics". Artsy vs Generic crap.

DF was great, but there was nothing in the scope and detail of what MW had for fleshing out the local culture and history of Morrowind.

See elander's response.

I was talking about joinable factions / guilds. Consequences? They are narrative only, or did I miss something?

See elander's response.

Which I obviously think is the case, or I wouldn't have put it here, don't you think?

You actually admit it? How embarrassing for you. Yes, find some mushrooms or kill [insert name] are fine examples of superior design. Sure, there are decent quests in MW, but they represent probably 15-20% (I'm being very generous here) of the overall quests. Well, guess what, DF also had very decent handcrafted quests, so there is no real gain here.

But the above are the reason why the end result was, to me personally, an improvement over DF.

It aint much, just so you know, but I'm very happy for you.

I have seen more coherent arguments from you too, buddy!

Was I supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the game you like is utter shit? (which isn't that case here). Why? You like it, and I'm sincerely happy for you. The end.