darkmind35 said:
elvor0 said:
Look, there seems to one main thing you're overlooking; it's a video game. There is only so much they can put in the game before it starts to collapse under it's own code.
One day I'm sure we'll have complete and utter freedom, but your "oh everything is just do this, then do that, then do that" can be applied to every game in existence if you want to boil it down to the simplicity you're stating in all of your posts. There is no game in existence that offers the amount of freedom you think Skyrim should have, because it's not technologically feasible to do so. Just think of the amount of man power and resources you'd need to have that level of fidelity and choice in everything in the game.
You seem to be under the impression that video games are magic, and that the magic coders can just will things into existence, and that by not allowing complete and un-negated freedom to do anything that your imagination dreams up is just them slacking in the wizarding department. Yes I know that's me being extremely hyperbolic, but your points and complaints are completely infeasible for current gaming technology to account for.
Relative to most games Skyrim has a lot of freedom. You seem to be confusing the concept of freedom in games with total control and allowance to do whatever. Of course there is going to be some constraints because no developer can ever make a game that offers anything and everything the player could possibly think of doing. This isn't D&D, where you can just make up the results, because every game in inexorably bound to what's in the code.
You want freedom, then you complain that people that enjoy climbing mountains for the sake of it are stupid. Do you not see how contradictory that statement is? I climb that mountain because I can, because I can sit on top of and check out the view, merely because I can and because it's there. Why do anything, you're still doing anything just for the sake of it if you want to view things like that.
And your statement about New Vegas is total bull; "over two hundred endings!", that's not true and you know it isn't, there's about five endings and the odd change in text at the ending monologue, that's not two hundred endings.
Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: Think about the amount of Manpower and resources you need to be able to make a game with that much choice. The voice acting, the coding, the graphics, animations, dialogue options etc etc.
With "200 hundred endings" (notice the "") I was referring Tod Howard's blowjob review where HE, THE MAIN DEVELOPER exclaimed that *FALLOUT 3* had over 200 endings. Cleared up? Howard and his team are knowns liars. Someone screencapped and put together all the bullshit they promised to fans through official channels.
None of the points I mentioned are "infeasible with current tech". F.ex. the barbarian. Easy. Use the same follower code for a while and BANG, add a timer or trigger for a backstab. Not hard at all. Maybe takes a minute or two to code. And what about everything else? Bethesda simply opted for the bling bling, instead of real content.
I'm not saying OH GOD EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, I'm saying that Skyrim performs much poorer than it's predecesors in pretty much everything other than graphics department.
>voice acting
Easily achieved with a few more lines. There are PLENTY of games (most namely visual novels) that consist nothing than 40 hours of voice acting and still have MUCH MUCH smaller budget.
>the coding
Like my barbarian example. It's not hard, just copy pasta a few lines of code that's already done and maybe add few voice files. Or if an "essential" dies, just add some more lines that say "quest failed" and maybe some other reprecussions depending on the person killed. new Vegas achieved this pretty well.
>the graphics
Like I said, Bethesda went for a wider audience and needed all the bling bling they could get on the expense of actual gameplay and freedom.
>animations
Exactly how hard it is to add a few more animations? Even modders can do a better job than Bethesda in week. Though I'm not doubting Bethesda's capability, they just were lazy. Plus, you can use the same animations for many different NPCS.
>dialogue options
What is like every other good RPG ever made? They manage branching dialogue and have way more text and voice than Skyrim's one line "le knee arrows". Skyrim has much less voice acting than you actually think. Most of it is just repeated lines.
Yes, all of those things are easy to implement on their own, but not all together. A visual novel consists of mostly voice acting and not much else. If Bethesta wants to add more lines or change something they have to bring in the voice actors again to record more lines, which means paying them more and organizing them to come in, along with all the things that come with it.
Old school RPGs had more branches I'll give you that, but it's easier to just type some text in and go with it in an old RPG than it is these days, when combined with the voice acting, which is in every quest, I'm not not really referring to the ambient NPC dialogue. And you can't just copy pasta code in order to add all the desired effects, there's a lot more to it than that.
And you never stated that 200 endings was coming from Todd Howard, because you simply put it on the tail end of a post that consisted entirely you praising New Vegas, so don't get all snarky about it. As far as I'm aware it was an extension of your post.
Further more, the game improves in a few areas beyond graphics, and you seem to be ignoring them just for the sake of your argument. The combat has been improved, you've now got bashes, smoother power attacks, sprinting, sprint attacks, Perks, which are miles better than Oblivions skill ups, because they allow you to tailor your character far more than what was possible in the old system. Followers have been properly implemented and improved too, (granted Fallout 3 had them first, but in the series itself it's an improvement over oblivion) as well as Spell Combining, and Dual Wielding.
You've also got the radiant quest system, allowing for more quests beyond what's in the preset quests. Which I notice a couple of posts down you complain about it being two simplistic. It's a randomly generated quest system, it can't be that complicated, expecting otherwise is just being naive. Had he stated it was in the game and it wasn't then yes, he would be lying. We could argue that his delibretly vague bigging up of it is a bit honest, but then anyone expecting magically spawning complicated quest lines is being a bit optimistic. But it's not the same as lying, perhaps misleading, but then that's down to your own interpretation.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with having an "adventure sim", Elder Scrolls games have never been big on story since Morrowind, it's more about just plonking you in a world with a main quest as a vague framing device to give you at least some "epic" quest line to follow.
I mean overall, Skyrim has a lot more quests in it, but less options, so While Mass Effect or Fallout Two have more dialogue options, they have less quests over all, it's a trade off, but writing the game off as crap and hyped only by "lies and bullshit" is just being obtuse.
Skyrim is no more or less "casual" than Morrowind or Oblivion are, and I'm pretty sure Oblivion had no variation from the path either, it's just different, and improves enough in other areas for a lot of people to enjoy it.
I mean I realise different things are good for different people, but saying it's crap is just wrong and needlessly having it in the game. I've played some fucking awful games in my time, some hideous games that make me want to break things, games that don't work on any level, and Skyrim is not one of them.
