608 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand_Commander13]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

This thread makes me want to buy the New Vegas expansion now. Fallout 3 is pretty cool, but it missed out on alot of roleplay and story opportunity in my opinion. We won't know how it compares to DA 2 until it is released though...so...huh?

If that's what you disliked about Fallout 3 then you'll love New Vegas.

The relevance New Vegas has to DA2 is that fans on these boards perceive DA2 as simplified relative to DA:O while what made New Vegas better than Fallout 3 was the addition of complexity.

[StingingVelvet]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

This thread makes me want to buy the New Vegas expansion now. Fallout 3 is pretty cool, but it missed out on alot of roleplay and story opportunity in my opinion. We won't know how it compares to DA 2 until it is released though...so...huh?

It's not the point of the thread, even though I forgive you for thinking so after the last dozen pages.

[Hulk Hsieh]

People always seem to forget TES games always sells over 4 millions and FO3 did even better.

The sales of NV can't be viewed as as an independent event.

[Grand_Commander13]

^I think the idea is that the addition of the more complex RPG stuff was not a turnoff for sales and indeed garnered praise from fans. Going back to my argument in favor of a studio caring that people who would have bought the game anyway are happier than they could have been.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Well, you can also say that the bold changes of Beth from FO1 and FO2 when they created FO3 is what makes it sold far better than FO1/FO2 and better than TES series.

FO:NV is a worthy spin-off so it keeps the sales from FO3.
But the sales breaktrough happened in FO3, and it is a far more influentian event.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 20 novembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[AlexXIV]

That Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas add complexity and depth is simply wrong. The main story line is rather short and ... meh. Nothing new. What you do most of the time is collecting stuff and exploring. For anyone who ever wanted to be a scavenger it is probably a great game. They are not bad games, mind you. But I hardly felt the drive for a second playthrough. It is mostly just annoying to do this little stuff which has nothing to do with the story. I mean 50% of the time you are sorting your inventory, travelling back and forth to sell your stuff etc.

Fallout is huge, but that's not deep. DAO was deep. The characters feel much more alive actually participate in the story. I mean Cass' comment 'Caravan of two now' always made me smile, but how is that deep? Fallout is probably more fun playing because I just love sniping, which on the other side makes the game a bit too easy. Anyway a huge world doesn't mean a deep story. I don't even know why supposedly 5 million people bought FNV. Neither will I ever understand why they put in alot of stuff just to annoy people. Aka alot of items that have no use at all.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

The main story line is rather short and ... meh. Nothing new.

I've never scome across a character quite like Caesar. He made me think that obsidian had learnt from Bioware in terms of morally complex decisions (though it can certainly be taken as a very simple one)

[Veex]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
I've never scome across a character quite like Caesar. He made me think that obsidian had learnt from Bioware in terms of morally complex decisions (though it can certainly be taken as a very simple one)

Caesar is definintely one of the more interesting characters in the game. It's difficult to try and quantify something like character depth and interest because that will vary between each individual, but harkening back to the Roman empire and creating a charismatic, intelligent, and perhaps misguided leader at the forefront of that certainly is interesting. I think the parellel to a familiar archetype in a semi-believable future is what makes Caesar so appealing.

I think Obsidian has always had some pretty great support characters though, Kreia being the other who instantly comes to mind. Though I personally thought they went a little too far on the "cryptic and gray" path, she did receive a lot of praise.

That aside, I still think the additions that New Vegas has made mean very little for the direction of future BioWare titles.

[asaiasai]

I don't know i thought FO3's story was good, and FONV is good as well i think some points are missed.
In FO3 and NV the player sets the pace, the game goes as fast or as slow as the player chooses. It is possible to do the entire story line in less than 30 hours if you focus on just the story missions as i did with my 3rd character who is a Legion supporter. I wanted to finish that character as fast as possbile because i did not like the CL side of things, i had to do bad things to good people. Character number 4 is going to support Mr. House and as such i do not have to be a cruel bastard and i find myself liking this character much more than i did the pervious one. I am well past the 30 hour mark and still have to get the platinum chip from Benny.


What would be really awesome is the story depth of DAO combined with the world depth of FONV and i think you have something there. Each game is epic in thier own way and yes each game has a different feel to it. Dragon Age propels the player along always pointing the player in a direction, go here and talk to this person or go there and talk to this person. The DAO world is limited in scope in that i can go anywhere i want, provided of course that is not Highever or Dragons Peak again. The confinement is given the appearance of freedom by allowing the player to roam within the confines of a few open areas as they choose. In FO the world is literally open and at first with the different style of play (no hand holding of the PC) it can be a bit overwhelming leaving the player with a WTF am i going to do now feeling. Upon getting past the typical RPG hand holding the player really can embrace a freedom very few games can pull off.


As far as the salvage complaints i do not think folks get that salvage is the workable economy, in that as a player i can spend hours hauling trash to vendors so that i can buy that epic gear, hell i can haul trash until i have bought all the epic gear. That is true freedon in a game, in that I decide what is important to me. I know alot of folks have stated they like having to make a choice as to which upgrades or gear they want to buy, not being able to buy everything they want. I say that is nonsense, i am also making a choice that by spending the time necessary to haul trash so i do not have to make a choice about the items i buy. Choice is still present, still the driving force behind the player, but as a player i can buy everything if i work for it, or i can just buy what is relevant and move on, true freedom not an appearance. Kind of like scanning for minerals in ME2 if i chose to spend time scanning metals to sell for credits to buy evertthing i want in the game what difference does it make in a single player experience? If in that single player experience i spend 40 hours just scanning planets, harvesting elf roots or crafting potions with them, how can that be a bad thing in a game if the player has the option to do as much or as little as they want. I hear you in that "we do not want a WoW kind of grind experience" but i would rather have the option to WoW grind if i chose because i want that special armor or weapon than to have to choose between them. In the over all scheme of things what difference does it make, in the end i am still playing and that is the most important thing that can be said about a game. 

Alot of the duration complaints are similar to the folks who want to come on yelling about how easy the game is, complaining because they are so leet that they can blow thorugh the game. If though you inquire one will usually find these same individuals using tier 7 Warden Commanders plate waving Starfang at which point i just tune them out as irrelenvant. The game is to easy then go buy non buff gear and see how far you can go before you come back. So if your complaing that FONV is too short that is a problem only YOU can fix, as there is plenty of stuff, almost too much stuff, to do in FONV that to rush the main quest is to rob yourself of a cool experience. On a side note i have been able to blow through a game in less than 30 hours which is on average my time for a screwing around ME2 playthrough doing most of the stuff.
As always though games seem to borrow good ideas from each other, like the cop radius from GTA4 was almost a carbon copy of the cop interface from Scarface the Game. I would like to see a deeper more open world i guess DAO in the Aurora engine (i think that is the FO3 and FONV engine) but i do think that would require some changes to story telling that perhaps Bioware can not or are not ready to make.
Asai 

Modifié par asaiasai, 20 novembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[Sidney]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

^I think the idea is that the addition of the more complex RPG stuff was not a turnoff for sales and indeed garnered praise from fans. Going back to my argument in favor of a studio caring that people who would have bought the game anyway are happier than they could have been.

The thing is that most of the "RP" stuff is buried away and you can play for hours and really never do any of it. I got 20+ hours into the game before I left for a trip and during that time I can't think of many RP elements I had. Most of time time was wandering the wasteland and killing things for no good reason.

The RP might be praised but the game still isn't abaout story and character as much as exploration and setting.

[Ryzaki]

I frankly think it's about both and that's what makes it so goood. IN BW games I'm so used to being herded that with this new freedom I was just...blown away.

That's just me though. This is the first fallout game I've ever played. *goes off in search of FO2 and FO1*

[joriandrake]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

...



...

Let's try this again.

Niche appeal and mainstream appeal are not intrinsically mutually exclusive. That's the entire point of what I'm saying- FO:NV is an example of a game demonstrating that it can remain appealing to a subset of the market (a certain 'niche') and still sell very well. Yay.

There isn't some magical sales number at which point, oops, now that niche of players is no longer interested. The things they find enjoyable and rewarding don't abruptly evaporate because the game passed an arbitrary sales threshold.

If you still aren't grasping this, let me present it another way. Hockey fans are a niche market among sports enthusiasts. However, certain Hockey games can still be televised on 'mainstream channels' because those particular games (generally playoffs) have sufficient crossover appeal that they will put up 'mainstream numbers' while still pleasing the original niche. The one need not come at the expense of the other.

Lets try this again. The things you like about Fallout are the things 4,999,999 people also like. Your tastes are in line with the mainstream not the niche. The new Fallout games are the Call of Duty of rpgs, it is a series which appeals to a large amount of people, sells very well, and changes very little between each new game.

true, I was unable to finish F3, and I don't consider it a real Fallout sequel anymore, Obsidian made the best with what Bethesda threw at them, but they are no miracle workers, still, a good try to place true RPG back into the game.

[Costin_Razvan]

New Vegas does add some interesting things but given the nature of it's gamebreaking bugs ( Lag in VATS, constant crashes, loading screens ) I don't think it will impact Dragon Age 2 sales. Yes DA:O had loads of bugs, nowhere near comparable to New Vegas.

Gameplay wise I did not feel so much of a change on Very Hard compared to F3. I suppose the change with armor does it make it much harder at lower dificulties, but on VH I did not stand a chance against a Deathclaw without a big juicy gun and I don't stand a chance now without one. Nothing different.

The Hardcore mode doesn't add ANYTHING save for a minor annoyance in that you need to drink, sleep and eat...considering the sheer ammount of food and water that I loot from bodies and steal from houses it really doesn't matter. The stimpack change does matter however to a degree, but not so much that it makes the game hard.

Anyway, with DA: 2 coming out in March I find it hard to believe that a game released four months earlier would actually impact their sales ( even if NV was such an improvement over the original, which it isn't ). The real game that will challenge their sales is the Witcher 2.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:39 .

[Maria Caliban]

I didn't experience a lag in VATs, the game crashed twice on me in 40 hours, and loading happened quickly and without problem.



Fallout will impact DA sales through genre exposure and popularity. Popular games, books, and movies stimulate the genre they're in. After Harry Potter came out, the young adult fantasy market experienced a boom as publishers were more willing to spend money on new authors and promoting existing series. Fallout would only be bad for the DA series if a FO and DA game came out in the same month or a Fallout game did poorly.

[AlexXIV]

Ryzaki wrote...

I frankly think it's about both and that's what makes it so goood. IN BW games I'm so used to being herded that with this new freedom I was just...blown away.
That's just me though. This is the first fallout game I've ever played. *goes off in search of FO2 and FO1*

Well you are not 'herded' in Fallout, that's true. They let you go wherever you want and do whatever you want. Just the downside is that if you don't follow a certain path you gonna screw alot of quests and you get some events that don't make any sense on the way. I have made it a habit to save often and always look up in walkthroughs if something's not working as I think it should. It is so easy to ruin your whole game. While I played DAO maybe 10 times I only played FONV once, but this playthrough I had to start over about 3 times from a point where I had more than half the content explored.

If they make it an open world and let you do what you want they should do it in a way that whatever you do it doesn't break the game at some point, they also need to make the quests more flexible. There are not many options right now. So I can do without this fake freedom thing unless they do it right.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:16 .

[asaiasai]

Shoot i do not understand all the bugs people are complaining about. I have 3 completed characters, working on number 4 and i have had a few crashes but that is because i play on PC and have an ass load of mods already installed. I have had mods cause problems but once i removed the offending mods the game played fine i can not blame the developer for that. Truth be told i had less problems with FO3, FONV than i had with DAO circa patch 1.03, 1.04 with the requirement that i had to save, exit the game and restart about every 2 hours or the game would get laggy and crash. Seriously i have a 2500 dollar PC i built in May of this year and it could take up to 5 minutes to chug through the menus to save my progress and exit the game. When i restarted the game it played fine for 1 hour and 45 minutes and then i would have to repeat the process.



To remain relevant to the topic maybe Bioware should learn to spend a bit more time bug testing, or like the developer for FONV once a problem is located fix it. It is kind of unfair to Bioware though, FONV has such a strong mod community that alot of times before the developer can get the corporate aparatus in motion to address an issue the modders have already fixed it lol ( the Veronica level fix comes to mind). So maybe you should release more tools, make them easier to use, not be so secretive and controlling about the content, and maybe your mod community will kick ass someday and fix your problems for you lol.



Asai

[AlexXIV]

What I don't understand from Obsidian is why they made the world so huge and the characters so shallow. Would have been better if they added more depth to the companions and scrapped a few of the purely scavanger locations in which you don't really do anything aside from killing everything and then picking up everything.

What Bioware can learn is probably that people prefer to not be taken at the hand and led through the game. Though if you look at the games at a whole Obsidian isn't doing much better, since most of their characters are sort of shallow. They can both learn from each other.

[December Man]

asaiasai wrote...
Shoot i do not understand all the bugs people are complaining about.  

I had so many bugs and glitches, I decided to ditch the game after 40 hours. I'll try with a new character after it's decently patched... which means in about a year.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why are we focusing on FO:NV when it is clearly FO3 which can draw the most parallels to DA2?

FO3 was the sequel which streamlined the fanchise extensively. It intensified the action, changed the artistic direction of the franchise and took place on the far away from the original's setting. (note that "FO3" here is completely interchangeable with "DA2")

Like it or not, FO is now extremely streamlined, and trying to argue that it is a good example of catering to a niche audience and still being able to sell, is.... dumb....

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[Krytheos]

The definition of a niche' market: A subset of the market on which it is focusing upon, having product features that are aimed at satisfying specific market wants and/or needs towards a -- traditionally believed -- small market, such as those who like salt and pepper shakers in the shape of animals, or the like, indicating that the product features are made with -them- specifically in mind.



A mainstream audience, as defined, is one defined at a much wider audience and has product features that would appeal to a -wide variety- of people vs the small variety that want specific product features as it was aimed for -them.-



Fallout New Vegas is a mainstream audience; everyone -within- the audience is mainstream, not because of the sales figures, or numbers -- though that contributes to it -- but because the product features within it are targeted at a wide demographic of people within the niche market. It isn't for the 'niche audience', it is for the mainstream audience, and no matter the features, if you have bought it, you are part of the mainstream audience, according to this definition.



Examples of a mainstream audience a product gears towards:

Cereal brands such as Lucky Charms, Cheerios, Cookie Crisps, or really the majority of cereal brands in general;

pots and pans;

music bands, such as Justin Bieber, Sean Kingston, Usher, Akon, etc.

Video games such as DA: O, Mass Effect 2, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 3, Oblivion.



Examples of a niche audience:

Salt and pepper in the shape of animals,

music bands such as Creature Feature, Twiztid, Original Soundtracks, Touhou arrangements, Voltaire, etc.

Video games such as The Witcher/The Witcher 2, Dead Space: Ignition, Dynasty Warriors, Dynasty Warriors Gundam series, Samurai Warriors, Sengoku Basara, Hokuto no Ken Musou, Folklore, ICO, Planescape: Torment, etc.



Now, this does not mean they will always -be- in the niche audience. For instance, they may upgrade to mainstream once their products are fully out in the open and people are interested in buying them for those features; initially, they are in a niche market aiming for a niche audience, but they can upgrade to mainstream if their features are well-liked among many many people. This means that what once was a niche game is now considered a 'mainstream' game, as it is floating in the mainstream mindframe, and is considered by many to be a good game. Examples of this include World of Warcraft, and DA: O, but find their places rooted into the mainstream, as their features become much more apparent and well-liked among the community, therefore upgrading the niche audience status to mainstream.



A niche game that retains a niche audience throughout, but who's features haven't really been made/appreciated by a very wide demographic retain their niche game status, even if they are considered 'cult hits.' Examples of this include Folklore, Planescape: Torment, ICO, the Dynasty Warriors series, the Samurai Warriors series, American McGee's Alice, etc.



It's also a very loose term that gets thrown around a lot when it doesn't need to be.



Niche=/=Mainstream. You can't really lump them in the same place, because both terms are so very different from another and opinions differ so much that it's like arguing apples and oranges and then saying pears are a combination of both. There will be people who agree, people who disagree, and some who want to lump both into one when it doesn't really belong.





tl;dr version: Everyone's definition of 'niche market/audience' is different, and you should respect their opinions. However, if you are defining a game as niche' when it has broad appeal, you -are- in fact, making an incorrect statement. A niche game who has a niche audience that suddenly finds fame in the mainstream is upgraded to mainstream status, as the demographic reached is wider.



They are exclusive to each other, as both have very wide definitions, and very specific areas that define them in an understandable way, and what is 'niche' cannot also be mainstream, as per the definitions of both.



Just sayin' that to be more clear on the whole issue.

[KethWolfheart]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why are we focusing on FO:NV when it is clearly FO3 which can draw the most parallels to DA2?

FO3 was the sequel which streamlined the fanchise extensively. It intensified the action, changed the artistic direction of the franchise and took place on the far away from the original's setting. (note that "FO3" here is completely interchangeable with "DA2")

Like it or not, FO is now extremely streamlined, and trying to argue that it is a good example of catering to a niche audience and still being able to sell, is.... dumb....

Well my interpertation (which is just my own opinion) is that FNV is being compared becuase it showed you could make a great role playing game, with exploration, flexibility in character making, good writing and story, interesting companions (although certainly not as deep as DAO by any stretch of the imagination).

In other words some people see DA2 as being made into more of an action game, that is simpler to play and closer to the console style of games.  FNV, on the other hand, is more of a traditional RP style game.  

So the idea is that FNV showed there is still a good market for games with those qualities and that perhaps developers don't have to turn all games into some actiony, simplified, mass appeal style game to get sales - a worry some people feel is what is happening to DA2.

Of course, as this thread shows, some peopls personal opinion is that FNV was an awful game and DA2 will kick ass for them.  It is all opinion based on personal game preference.  But one could imply the thread is about that issue - can you still make a game like X and get enough sales to do well.

At least that was my take.  I have seen others indicate that it might impact sales in some way, although I don't really see that myself.

On a side note, I played FNV for 93 hours my first time through.  I crashed about 7-9 times I think during that time period.  I had one bug occur with a faction that I fixed by reloading a previous game.  Other than that I never saw all the bugs everyone else seems to have gotten.  I also thought the story was EXCELLENT.  Well written ,creative and interesting.  I also liked the characters but think they needed a lot more depth and interaction - if the companions had been on par with DAO, then FNV would be my new best game ever.  Still they were creative and I especially liked how they handled some of the GLBT content with Veronica and Arcade.

FO3 I purhcased last week and I find it fun but way more shallow then FNV.  I disagree that FNV has gotten so much praise just because it is riding on FO3 and Bethseda.  If anything the forums and articles find it doing so well in spite of FO3.  I think it is the fact that FNV returned FO to a more RPG style game that is what made it so popular.

Again that ties into DA2 in this thread.  Some people feel DA2 is going in reverse and moving away from what made DAO so great.  Again just opinion.

In general I think by focusing DA2 on consoles they will make more money as it is a bigger crowd of people.  Also the console players seem to enjoy a different style of game play - that which DA2 is moving towards.  Thats great for the console players, Bioware/EA and those PC folks who enjoy that style of game.  Not so great for folks who enjoy the style of, say, DAO and FNV.

Modifié par KethWolfheart, 20 novembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[Ryzaki]

AlexXIV wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I frankly think it's about both and that's what makes it so goood. IN BW games I'm so used to being herded that with this new freedom I was just...blown away.
That's just me though. This is the first fallout game I've ever played. *goes off in search of FO2 and FO1*

Well you are not 'herded' in Fallout, that's true. They let you go wherever you want and do whatever you want. Just the downside is that if you don't follow a certain path you gonna screw alot of quests and you get some events that don't make any sense on the way. I have made it a habit to save often and always look up in walkthroughs if something's not working as I think it should. It is so easy to ruin your whole game. While I played DAO maybe 10 times I only played FONV once, but this playthrough I had to start over about 3 times from a point where I had more than half the content explored.

If they make it an open world and let you do what you want they should do it in a way that whatever you do it doesn't break the game at some point, they also need to make the quests more flexible. There are not many options right now. So I can do without this fake freedom thing unless they do it right.

True but it's realistic in a way. You don't get the "you're convientely at X at just the right time!" (though I think you always meet that weird guy from the Legion at Nipton).

What you consider ruin I consider ging "whoops! well I can do that on my next playthrough. :D" 

I have the feeling I'm going to beat FONV a lot less but put more game hours into it. DA got very dull for me after about two playthroughs. You always know what's going to happen and when.
Nah I'm okay with the fake freedom. (How is it fake aways? Nothing stops you from doing the quests out of order). Rather than BW's handholding.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Krytheos wrote...

The definition of a niche' market: A subset of the market on which it is focusing upon, having product features that are aimed at satisfying specific market wants and/or needs towards a -- traditionally believed -- small market, such as those who like salt and pepper shakers in the shape of animals, or the like, indicating that the product features are made with -them- specifically in mind.

A mainstream audience, as defined, is one defined at a much wider audience and has product features that would appeal to a -wide variety- of people vs the small variety that want specific product features as it was aimed for -them.-

Good lord, again?

Two things that a number of people seem to be missing here:

1) Niches don't 'exist' as standalone discrete entities, they are created/defined by marketers when marketing products; If I'm in the game development business in the mid 90s and I determine that players who prefer fantasy themed games with loot and increasing stats don't seem to be getting well-served by the currently available product offerings, I have created and identified an exploitable niche. I carved up the market, lumped together a set of interests not being well served that I think I can address profitably, and resolved to create a product to fill that need. Blizzard did this. They made Diablo. Hey, it sold really really well, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a niche when they identified and targeted an underserved market segment. The Wii initially targeted a niche as well, in that senior citizen homes were not marketed to by the Xbox 360 or the PS3 at all. They weren't even IN the gaming market until Nintendo was able to identify them as potentially viable customers, create a product capable of filling their needs, and marketing accordingly (Oprah!).

2) I never categorized FO:NV as a niche game. I said it sold well while retaining niche appeal. In other words, it was more like a silo solution, which is a strategy for aggregating multiple niches and serving them all better than anyone else is at the time. From a marketing perspective, absolutely, it was marketed to the mainstream (just look at the trailers for it). But the developers were also able to position their product to better serve a certain set of under-served niches ('old school' Fallout gamers who felt alienated by FO3, old school cRPG players looking for a big budget release, etc). While FO:NV was by no means a niche product, simply by cleverly positioning it relative to the rest of the market, it better served those consumers than anything else currently out there. If somehow Troika rose from the dead and released an isometric Fallout 4 and targeted those same consumers simultaneously, FO:NVs positioning wouldn't help. That Troika release would be a true niche product and would truly serve the market in question. But until that happens, FO:NV gets those buys instead.

To bring this back to DA, the point of the comparison was that from FO3->FO:NV, the developers were able to reposition the product slightly to better serve that chunk of the market without losing the overall broad appeal of a visceral first person gun-porn head-detonation simulator. And maybe they were uniquely afforded that luxury because of where FO3 itself started out. Maybe DA:O, which definitely was more of a direct appeal conceptually to the BG2-style market (although it was eventually marketed as more of a mainstream product) had more room to give in the other direction. I can certainly see the merit in that argument. I mean, okay, DA2 is moving away from the old-school BG2 fan's tastes, unquestionably, but is there anything else comparably serving that segment anywhere in the immediate future? I really don't think the Witcher 2 counts, as I'd argue that it was already more action-oriented and single-character focused. So I think it's probably a safe bet that, like it or not, Bioware can keep the majority of that BG2 loving old school market segment's buys while still moving away from us a bit for more mainstream exposure, unless and until someone else comes along and targets them with something more compelling.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Double post.

One thing I hope DA2 means for the next Fallout release- Even better companion interactions. By far the best of the most recent post-apocalyptic novels (in my opinion) was The Road and virtually the entire focus was in the relationship between the father and son survivors. While FO1 and 2 were pretty nihilistic and followers were notoriously prone to early deaths, I don't think that's necessarily a staple of the franchise. When walking the blighted wastes, it's better, I'd argue, to do so with well fleshed out NPCs.

Modifié par Vylan Antagonist, 20 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[Sidney]

KethWolfheart wrote...

Well my interpertation (which is just my own opinion) is that FNV is being compared becuase it showed you could make a great role playing game, with exploration, flexibility in character making, good writing and story, interesting companions (although certainly not as deep as DAO by any stretch of the imagination).

Good writing? Really? FNV has nada on the writing front unless it suddenly gets a LOT better than what I've seen so far.

It has precious little "role playing". It has a nice leveling system but as far as my character, whose name I can't recall at this point that's how attached to him I am although I did pick the pompadour hair-do, he means nothing to me. He's got no real identity other than a lot of bad karma because he steals from dead people who attacked him...huh?

FNV, like FO3 or Oblivion or Morrowwind before it shows the the problem of the open world system. An initial rush of exhilaration as you think, man this world his huge, then a grinding realization that while there are 500 places to explore at least 350 of them are the same old same old...oh look another camp ground with some improbably left lying around loot with some actually interesting places sprinkled in between. If you time it (especially early on) on you spend more time walkking and killing vermin than playing any sort of time and the biggest thing that changes that is the way you blip through the huge open world with fast travel.