What Skyrim Learned from Fallout 3

[Epic Fail 1977]

I can't say I'm that hyped, mostly because the conversation system sounds to me (based on the Skyrim preview videos) every bit as immersion-shattering as the ones in Oblivion were.

 

[Darth_Dude]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

I cant wait!

Not really much else to say here..

 

[Raddra]

If only I could drug myself into unconsciousness till its released.. I can't wait. :S

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Well, they built a completely new engine for Skyrim from scratch. Not to mention the Elder Scrolls is COMPLETELY different from Fallout (I LOVE oblivion, but HATE Fallout 3). Also, why are Bethesda in your worst developers list if you've only ever played ONE of their games?

The engine alone doesn't mean that the gameplay and mechanics won't be similar and this article is saying that there changing a few things to be more like Fallout 3 from oblivion. The fact that they did that in the slightest makes me give up all hope for Skyrim.

But this is Fallout 3, this was a big, BIG game and they would have put a lot of effort into it. And it came out AWFUL.

Whut?

Look I agree F3 wasn't a fantastic game, it was good and blows most other entries out of the water but it's faults were evident. How can taking the good parts from it and replacing the (frankly endemic) shitty parts from oblivion be anything but great?
Take two potentially amazing but realistically just great games and mix the best parts of each and you think it will be bad?

No, sorry. The gameplay is completely dissimilar, this is a fantasy rpg, not a sci fi shooter rpg, the shooting mechanics were always poor with F3 and the melee has been drastically improved upon as shown by every trailer and gameplay run. The 'mechanics' like what? Sidequests etc? Well yeah the whole point of the games is a vast array of sidequests and so on which let you ROLE PLAY.

Anyway this is great news to me, the little stories in F3 were often the best and the improvements in dialogue etc are already obvious from gameplay videos, nice to see the actual conversations should work as well.

 

[Flying Dagger]

So there's going to be more of these little scenes you walk into?

well... I guess fallout 3 had that down, but I can't shake the feeling that that was because of the backstory of fallout as much as anything else.

You had this massive event, WW3, everything got fucked up, and you continually ran into little scenes that show how people lost their minds in the wastes, tried, but failed, to survive the nuclear bombardment, how bandits and raiders taking advantage of the lawlessness of the situation had played out and getting to see the remnants of a society we recognise...

Maybe I don't know enough of the backstory of elder scrolls (I only played oblivion) but I just don't think they'll be able to do as good a job of it.

 

[Draconalis]

To everyone who insists on pointing out the original "reduce by one tenth" meaning of the word decimate- this is not the meaning of the word now. Although dictionaries still list the original meaning, if you read the usage notes you will find that the original meaning is only used in two situations:

1. To talk about the military punishment historically.
2. To complain about the modern usage; to whit: to reduce to one-tenth.

This original meaning is an archaism; and in linguistics usage always wins. Words only mean what they are defined to mean.

I was taught that the way the meaning of a word changes is if people continue to use the word wrong long enough, it will eventually adapt to their stupidity.

I like using words correctly, and if the meaning has not changed in the dictionary, then the meaning of the word has not officially changed yet. I do not accept that linguistic use trumps the big book that tells use how we are supposed to use words linguistically.

That being said... Give it a few years and then you might be correct.

 

[Schrodinger's Hat]

I was taught that the way the meaning of a word changes is if people continue to use the word wrong long enough, it will eventually adapt to their stupidity.

I'd be interested to know who you learned that from... as it was definitely not a linguistics professor.

I like using words correctly, and if the meaning has not changed in the dictionary, then the meaning of the word has not officially changed yet. I do not accept that linguistic use trumps the big book that tells use how we are supposed to use words linguistically.

That is the point though... guides to usage are part of the dictionary, and the guide to usage for this word will tell you that the meaning "to reduce by one-tenth" is no longer used.
The alternative meanings "devastate, destroy" and "reduce to one-tenth" are the currently accepted meanings.

And to be honest, I don't care if you accept it or not; usage trumps all is the most basic tenet of linguistics.