The Elder Scrolls 5: Could it be good?

[Jaesun]

Stupidity of some Codex members amazes me.

At the risk of sounding all butthurt, go fuck yourself skyway.

Skywa.... MetalCraze is actually correct. The assumption that OMFG! BETHESDA LERND DIALOG AND SKILL CHEKS! They r getting bettar! OMG :hope:

 

[Crispy]

DIALOG AND SKILL CHEKS

So let me ask you - let's say Bethesda next learns how to put together a deeper story, along with the improvements you've conceeded they've already made, or rediscovered I guess. What then? And what if, after that, they add more C&C to their games? Will they then be legitimate? Or legitimate again, that is?

Your answer, I predict: no, because Bethesda will always suck no matter what. Did I get that right?

 

[MetalCraze]

If they will do every of those things right then yes.
However in Fallout 3 every single thing they did was beyond bad. They even managed to take bad Oblivion's writing and make it even worse by turning bland into moronic. So where are the improvements?
You are also forgetting that the only reason why there were dialogues and 100% success skill checks is because previous Fallout games had them (except done much better). Fallout series thorough rape also counts as an improvement these days?

 

[Crispy]

You are also forgetting that the only reason why there were dialogues and 100% success skill checks is because previous Fallout games had them

I call bullshit on this. How many other things did Fallout 1 and 2 have that 3 does not? (I'm sure this question will get a chuckle around here)

Here's a few of the basic ones:

- Isometric graphics

- Turn-based combat

- Setting in American SW

- Parties of more than two characters

Yes, and much better story, dialog, etc. Bethesda could have chosen to emulate all of the former (not having the personnel to pull off the latter), but they instead chose to put their own stamp on the franchise. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not defending Fallout 3 as a rightful successor to the originals. I feel it is not. But as a first-person action RPG, it's an improvement on Oblivion for the reasons mentioned before, and for others.

Fallout 3 is what it is. Rip on it as much as you want, I don't care. But when someone points out that there may be some hope for ES V as evidenced by Bethesda's progress in improving since IV, unless you can make a convincing argument otherwise, why not let the opinion stand?

 

[MetalCraze]

You forgot to tell me what are exactly those mythical improvements in Fallout 3?
Unkillable NPCs? Dumb minigames? Level scaling? Writing that is even worse than Oblivion's? Retarded quests that have no consequences? Another shitty plot? Wasteland that looks more like overpopulated theme park? Even smaller world than in Oblivion? Fast travel? Terrible VATS mechanics? Finally grey colour everywhere (Oblivion had more)? Where are the improvements - I don't see them - all I see is exactly the same Oblivion with dialogue trees/useless skill checks added and everything else made worse.

Of course I can too hide my head in the sand and pretend that there were no games besides Fallout 3 and Oblivion incl. earlier games from Bethesda like you do.
But even then F3 looks worse than Oblivion on many sides.

Finally it is called Fallout 3, not TES 4.5 thus you should only compare it to original Fallouts, not Oblivion and because of that it is a failure beyond failure. I'm sorry that I hurt your fanboy feelings though.

 

[Andhaira]

Well, they took out level scaling. AND dialogue was in trees instead of stupid parser.

 

[MetalCraze]

There is still a level scaling present. The example where you rape the shit out of supermutants at earlier levels is a good example.
And dialogue trees is not an improvement if the execution is beyond retarded - it's like they added a 5th wheel to a broken car without fixing it and that wheel is of a rectangle form.

 

[Rhalle]

I continue with my old opinion:

Oblivion is an infinitely better game than Fallout 3.

TES:V will be Fallout 3 with swords: mock-Bioware dialogue trees and atrocious writing, more xtreme gore, more watered-down story and 1/4 the content of TES:IV.

I hope it isn't. But it almost surely will be.

 

[The One True Gamer]

The writing in Fallout 3 is far superior to Oblivion. Fallout 3 is far superior to Oblivion. These are objective facts, which can be observed by simply playing the two games, and discovering which one is tolerable if usually inane (Fallout 3) and which one is disasterous and has you reaching for mute (Oblivion). Fallout 3 should have been a hell of a lot more than it is, but it's a big step up from Oblivion.

Finally it is called Fallout 3, not TES 4.5 thus you should only compare it to original Fallouts, not Oblivion and because of that it is a failure beyond failure. I'm sorry that I hurt your fanboy feelings though.

This is retarded.

 

[TisATrap]

The writing in Fallout 3 is not better on quality, only in quantity. In that the NPC speak longer lines. That's all.

There isn't a single memorable sentence in that shitgame. I fail to see how it is better than Oblivion.

 

[Wyrmlord]

The writing in Fallout 3 is not better on quality, only in quantity. In that the NPC speak longer lines. That's all.

There isn't a single memorable sentence in that shitgame. I fail to see how it is better than Oblivion.

So it is comparable to the original Baldur's Gate.

 

[The One True Gamer]

The writing in Fallout 3 is not better on quality, only in quantity. In that the NPC speak longer lines. That's all.

There isn't a single memorable sentence in that shitgame. I fail to see how it is better than Oblivion.

Exactly. Nothing memorable about it. Which is a big step up from Oblivion, which has plenty of memorable lines because they are that bad.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

The writing in Fallout 3 is not better on quality, only in quantity. In that the NPC speak longer lines. That's all.

There isn't a single memorable sentence in that shitgame. I fail to see how it is better than Oblivion.

Exactly. Nothing memorable about it. Which is a big step up from Oblivion, which has plenty of memorable lines because they are that bad.

It's the other way round, really. Oblivion was simply bland. Fallout 3 gave us such gems as "I'm looking for my father, middle-aged guy.", "The bomb is us, the bomb is atom, and thus we're atom." and laughably bad stat checks. Fallout 3 is still a step up, but not in writing.

 

[MetalCraze]

Step up? Oh gawd. Retarded Fallout 3's dialogue stat checks got a meme status on the Codex.
Writing in Oblivion is mostly bland and forgettable apart from a few dumb lines.
Fallout 3 OTOH is full of writing stupidity. How will you call writing where [intelligence] dialogue options are about stating the obvious whereas all other options sound like character is even dumber than that?
I'm not speaking about all other writing - Megaton is like a one big piece of writing poo - from the very idea and right down to the extremely dumb quest.
Not mentioning the whole plot *omg presidant iz a computar!*
Improvement? Hahaha.

I find it funny how retards say that TES5 has some hope of being good just because Fallout3 is less shit than Oblivion in something. It's like saying that when the next time Todd will take a dump it will be very tasty just because he added sugar to a shit last time you ate it.

 

[The One True Gamer]

Yeah because "I saw a mudcrab the other day" didn't become a meme of any sort.

 

[Jaesun]

DIALOG AND SKILL CHEKS

So let me ask you - let's say Bethesda next learns how to put together a deeper story, along with the improvements you've conceeded they've already made, or rediscovered I guess. What then? And what if, after that, they add more C&C to their games? Will they then be legitimate? Or legitimate again, that is?

Your answer, I predict: no, because Bethesda will always suck no matter what. Did I get that right?

You see, the ONLY flaw Bethesda has ever acknowledged, was the horrible level scaling present in Oblivion. They have NO idea their stories are just shit/bland/terrible. Even *if* they included Choice and Consequences, and skill checks they are still plagued by horrible fucking writing and main story. Anyways, they have no reason to improve/get better. Their games will STILL SELL no matter what improvements they will do in the next game. Why change a willing formula?

Bloom+GFX+Pay off "Professional Gaming Journalists" = WIN! They will continue to laugh at the Codex all the way to the Bank.

 

[MetalCraze]

Yeah because "I saw a mudcrab the other day" didn't become a meme of any sort.

Fallout 3 so very very improved and moved away from this.

You see, the ONLY flaw Bethesda has ever acknowledged, was the horrible level scaling present in Oblivion.

Not true - they also acknowledged the only flaw in Fallout 3 that it is there - the one where the game ends.
They are truly improving. And those 3 F3 DLC addons only prove that. But that is of course ignored by the retarded fanboys here on the Codex.

Bethesda would've improved only if they made a better game than Daggerfall. Of course fanboys ignore that game as well. As well as Morrowind which had infinitely better writing, design, world and lore. Not mentioning that they raped the fuck out of Fallout franchise. And all of this is ignored too by the retarded ESF embassy on the Codex.
The truth is - Bethesda right now is still in the same deep hole where it was for the past 7+ years.

 

[xuerebx]

Could it be good? I fucking hope so, TES is my favourite game series.

 

[denizsi]

I did find Fallout 3 somewhat enjoyable. I found nothing whatsoever to enjoy in Oblivion. I gotta admit that they did ok with a post-apoc setting. As bad and stupid as most dialogue was, it did manage to grab my attention for a while, and I have to admit, I enjoyed exploring some of the places (but was disappointed to find nothing worthwhile in the end, which includes most of the locales in the game).

Bethesda proved they are capable of being learning animals with Fallout 3.

They're on the same level of learning as a tamed dog: knowing where to shit in the house, instead of shitting all over the place. You're still cleaning after the dog.

Deniszi, when I said 'broken' I was not talking about bugs, but about the difficulty.

When I got to level 7 and also ended up becoming a werewolf because of The Fortress Of Fhojun main quest level, the game became so easy, it was not fun anymore. You become so powerful, you no longer have that feeling of when you started out - a man trying to survive on a few rusty equipment in a large dungeon with enemies that can crush you as badly as you to them.

Fortress of what? You mean Lhotun? Whatever. Yes, the game is terribly unbalanced in some areas. Beside other things, being a werewolf or a vampire makes things too easy without significant setbacks.

You are probably the biggest Daggerfall expert here; and you should know that a simple Nord Warrior with Dwarven Armor and a Dwarven Daikatana and a high Strength and Agility, is strong enough to massacre enemies, provided he has the necessary scrolls for certain spells.

I believe you forgot either high Luck or high Long Blade or high Dodge or high Critical Strike, because good equipment and high attributes alone don't make a massacre. Without a high Long Blade to use that Dwarven Daikatana, you'll only be able to hit once for several hits you'll take (for Agility only affects the base To Hit chance, which is further modifier by your and your opponent's relevant combat skills and equipment) from a single opponent; without high Dodge, those several hits you take will help you die rather quickly; without a high Critical Strike, those few hits you get to make will hardly matter despite high Strength; and without high Luck to substitute for any or all of these, you're dead meat. Dwarven armor helps a lot, of course, and so do potions, but if the memory serves correct, your experience would be nothing remotely like a massacre, unless of course, you're the subject of the massacre.

Now, if you mentioned high Speed, it would be a different case. To truely exploit the game, you gotta have high Speed. It turns you into a Gilbert Bates Steam-Engined Logging Machine that can take out Glimmering Forest in a breeze.

It may be so, but I did specify it was simply my opinion I was stating. And I stand by it; you think that

No. When you say combat in Daggerfall is simplistic, it simply is not a matter of opinion, but misinformation. You can't just take the simplicity of interface/interaction for the scope of RP elements under the hood, otherwise there has gotta be no more then 10 CRPGs ever released from early 80s to this day that can be called non-simplistic, and as I vaguely went over, combat in Daggerfall is nothing but simplistic.

It probably has to do with my personal conception of what an RPG should be; a game that doesn't once challenge you in any way/

Alright. Daggerfall has its quirks and exploits that lead to lack of challenge, like the one Wyrmlord mentioned, but on a general note, it can be pretty challenging. Unfortunately it's true that it becomes ever easier as you level up, but low levels do present a pretty good challenge on most fronts, but yes, it's easy to negate any challenge too soon if you know your way around.

doesn't even attempt to make you think once/

I'm assuming what you mean by that is the kind of thought and consideration one might have as to how to approach a given quest in abundance of choices. Because otherwise, you'd have fewer games to qualify for this criteria than you could count, using your fingers, to ten.

If, on the other hand, what you mean by that is the consideration given as to how to overcome any given challenge, be it a specific combat encounter or making the best of your equipment and resources for short term (or long term) goals, lots of games or no games at all past 1996 can qualify depending on details.

doesn't give any meaningful (as in: not only what may affect a two-minutes ending sequence) choices/

There are a few main quests and several side quests that leave you at a crossroads as to who to side with. Ever tried to talk to random nobles in a castle and get laughed at or get no response at all? Or the same from mere commoners in taverns or shops? Guess why. Just an example. Might not be very meaningful, but definitely more meaningful than what you see in most other games. But you don't find it meaningful, it's ok.

fails at leaving any lasting memories, being a memorable character, nice town, quotable dialogue, plot-twist or whatever/ - well, it's just not what I define as a "true" RPG.

Too subjective. I have lots of these from Daggerfall.

BUT if people like a TES game, and consider Daggerfall a good RPG, so be it: it must correspond to what they are looking for in the genre -good for them.

When people can't be objective on criterias they defined themselves, or fail to define criterias that defies subjective input, that's a pretty bullshit attitude to take.

 

[bat_boro]

Hey, and if it isn't that tech guy from Dollhouse!

 

[Jaime Lannister]

It'll have good graphics and be fun for the first few hours of play, just like Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3.

 

[Wyrmlord]

What do you guys think of Bethesda's ability to do openings?

They always start on an excellent impression, especially Shivering Isles with the portal rock with insane people running out and the room which turns into butterflies.

And yet, Shivering Isles ended in a rather anticlimatic bossfight. Not even the least of expectations of wanting a game to swing swords and kill people would allow you to stomach such a thing.

 

[Talby]

The excellent impression is stepping outside the dungeon at the start and realizing you've got this giant, open world to explore. It's all downhill from there.

 

[denizsi]

I wasn't mad about opening in Morrowind. I really didn't like the whole character creation as you go thing. Unnecessarily distracting and uninspiring, not to mention the underwhelming impression the opening town, supposedly a port town of some significance if lore is to be believed, left on me.

I haven't played SI, but likewise, Oblivion was pretty boring, despite the remote similarity it holds to Daggerfall. It's way too long winded just to make it out, what with railroaded imperial pimp Uriel and Mythic Dawn encounters. I wasn't expecting anything spectacular outside, but stepping outside the sewer was a big disappointment to me.

Fallout 3 was ok. Again, the whole Vault experience was too long winded, but at least the first glance at capital wasteland left a much better impression on me than Oblivion did.

Daggerfall was in-your-face, especially if it's your first play ever. You wake up in some obscure cave, which leads into this eerie dungeon with several hints of habitation. You face some scary shit all around and when you finally make it outside, it's a big NOTHING. It's likely to be night and snowing, in the middle of nowhere. Nothing in sight. It's like a polar wasteland. There's also a chance that there will be someone, or something, waiting for you out there, to scare you shitless. Then you travel to Daggerfall and experience the night-time city for the first time. Beautiful.

 

[Wyrmlord]

When you visit cities in Daggerfall, you don't feel like it is just a world specifically made so that you, the player, can interact with it. It is more of a feeling that is a city with its own business which will keep going on, whether or not you are there.

Oblivion's NPC routines probably should have had the same effect. But when you do those missions where you have to follow someone to see what they do or where they live; you see their routines, and it is just nothing more than going to the church, hopping on the horse, visiting the royal halls to talk to ministers, going to their place of employment to do two hours of work (no kidding), and coming back home.

Daggerfall's illusion of a virtual city was simply based on making a large city with a large number of people and livestock moving around. Oblivion's ambitions were higher, to create detailed routines for every person. And yet, all that amounts to is just a dozen people in one town moving from one place to another to do scripted actions. It is so terribly stilted, it does the opposite of what it intends. They should have just worried about making large detailed dungeons with a variety of enemies. Towns need serve no other purpose than just a hub for buying, selling, resting, and getting some quests. There is no point in recreating an entire virtual life there, especially since the player ultimately knows it is a game anyway.