- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 36,627
As compared to what? Ultima 7?
Underrail.
As compared to what? Ultima 7?
thus should be spared from criticism
Wtf are you smoking man. Since when does fucking Fallout have bad exploration? And why is this "reduction in quality" inevitable anyway?
Dont understand that about Underrail. Fallout exploration is bad as compared to Underrail(?). But Underrail is itself inspired by Fallout. So its not inevitable.
Combat or exploration... What? I dont understand but it doesnt matter. Fact is that Fallout has possibly the BEST exploration aspect so i dont see how will trying to be like Fallout lead (inevitably!) to reduction in the quality of exploration(or combat)... Sorry but you cant say stuff like that.
No. Fallout had no flaws, not important ones anyway, and it shouldve been cloned to death. But the New Codex wants to find a reason for lack of clones so it must be - "inevitable reduction in quality would follow". Its just excusing the devs for not doing the obvious, like this whole topic is suggesting.
Am I right in thinking Fallout was the first game to really utilise the 'isometric' viewpoint in RPGs, COMBINED with that viewpoint being in what would, at the time, have been the very pinnacle of AAA graphics; that difference being the jump from:
Combat or exploration... What? I dont understand but it doesnt matter. Fact is that Fallout has possibly the BEST exploration aspect so i dont see how will trying to be like Fallout lead (inevitably!) to reduction in the quality of exploration(or combat)... Sorry but you cant say stuff like that.
Think about something like Morrowind or Daggerfall and what would have to be taken away if they focused more on scripted role playing.
(or how New Vegas was criticized for not being as fun to explore as Fallout 3)
(furthermore consider that while Fallout's areas are certainly fine to explore there aren't that many of them at all even though it had been in development for 3.5 years, and the reasons why it's lacking in areas compared to say, a contemporary game like Baldur's Gate which was just full of exploration and content)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ns-would-you-want-to-know-more.75932/page-200I've noticed a disheartening trend that is significantly lowering the quality of discussion on this site. It is, namely, a perception that one knows about the internal workings of RPG developers despite have never worked in anything remotely similar to an RPG development environment. Every man and their dog's opinion is regarded as relevant simply since it supports the preconception that they hold, every little vaguely-rlated anecdote is dredged up and milked for all its worth. Some might say this: "The RPG Codex is host to a number of indie developers and coders; they ought to know about the development of RPGs. This is true, but developing an indie RPG is a very different experience from developing an AAA RPG, or even working at somewhere like Obsidian. The budget, amount of delegation, market requirements, and the factors that seperate the good RPGs from the bad are simply too different to serve as a useful comparison. But these people are hardly the most vocal about their opinions, as they are wise and know that producing a game, even if it is absolute shit, isn't easy. Those who are most vocal have never dipped their toes into the waters of game development, yet they insist they know everything about how RPGs are developed from analysing a few small shreds of evidence and making logical leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper beam with envy. These people contribute no useful discussion; they are a scourge upon the Codex. They need to realise that there are those who will call out their bullshit and hunt them down for it.
NV has a quest compass and thats why exploration sucks more or less the same as FO3.
It has a lot of content like Baldurs Gate though.
It seems you equate the amount of content with the quality of exploration; yet FO has better exploration than BG because it has a time limit and that "Tell me about" button which is what makes the difference.
NV has a quest compass and thats why exploration sucks more or less the same as FO3.
Nah.
It has a lot of content like Baldurs Gate though.
Yes, because everything was all set up to go. Not quite so easy when you're making everything from scratch.
I've noticed a disheartening trend that is significantly lowering the quality of discussion on this site. It is, namely, a perception that one knows about the internal workings of RPG developers despite have never worked in anything remotely similar to an RPG development environment. Every man and their dog's opinion is regarded as relevant simply since it supports the preconception that they hold, every little vaguely-rlated anecdote is dredged up and milked for all its worth. Some might say this: "The RPG Codex is host to a number of indie developers and coders; they ought to know about the development of RPGs. This is true, but developing an indie RPG is a very different experience from developing an AAA RPG, or even working at somewhere like Obsidian. The budget, amount of delegation, market requirements, and the factors that seperate the good RPGs from the bad are simply too different to serve as a useful comparison. But these people are hardly the most vocal about their opinions, as they are wise and know that producing a game, even if it is absolute shit, isn't easy. Those who are most vocal have never dipped their toes into the waters of game development, yet they insist they know everything about how RPGs are developed from analysing a few small shreds of evidence and making logical leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper beam with envy. These people contribute no useful discussion; they are a scourge upon the Codex. They need to realise that there are those who will call out their bullshit and hunt them down for it.
there seems to be this myth that more work put in=more quality.
Dude, AAA developers don't make good RPG because one the following reasons:
Let's make a list of those people that are our class enemy. Anyone's blaming the engine for whatever shortcomings is going on the list.
What kinda occurred to me yesterday is that the Underrail engine may be ageless (~15 years) if the codebase is decent. A niche developer could maybe live on it and make games
(unless we're talking about unity<4, in which case it's shit),