140 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

Addai67 wrote...

Gatt9, you sound like one of those conspiracy newsletter guys. Maybe you have a career with the Lone Gunmen. Not a thing you said makes any sense. But Morrowind nostalgism is a terrible, wasting disease- like corprus. Only more annoying to non-sufferers.

There's a surprise,  the guy gushing about Bethesda didn't bother to google anything I said and calls me a conspiracy theorist.

You really don't know very much about the company you're cheering do you?

[termokanden]

I think a lot of us just like playing games really and don't care that much about politics and never-ending opinions and fan/hater groupings surrounding the companies. At least I hope it's not just me.

Modifié par termokanden, 25 novembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[slimgrin]

bussinrounds wrote...

Bethesda can craft a nice world (dungeon design/layout is a joke though) but unfortunately that's where the positives end. Their gameplay (combat), story elements (writing,characters,dialogs, plots), quest design/choices & consequences and RPG mechanics are really lame.

I guess ppl that like their game are the types that are just content to wander around in some pretty open world and don't really care about deeper RPG elements. They're looking to get IMMERSED in a sim like experience.

That being said, at least they're still making GAMES, as opposed to Bioware, which I don't know what the hell their making now.

But hey, at least Bio has been providing the lulz recently, right ?

If there's one thing they need to improve on, it's combat. Still no fully developed melee system in TES after all these years. Dishonoured has better melee than Skyrim, they can start by looking at that game. As for the gunplay in FO4, I'm just hoping they keep it skill based and only use stats to support that in some way.

Modifié par slimgrin, 25 novembre 2012 - 07:18 .

[bussinrounds]

slimgrin wrote...


If there's one thing they need to improve on, it's combat. Still no fully developed melee system in TES after all these years. Dishonoured has better melee than Skyrim, they can start by looking at that game. 

 Agreed.  At least if they're gonna make these action/adventure games, deliver some interesting gameplay/combat FFS.  Even if it means cutting down on some of their useless presious RPG mechanics.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 25 novembre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Dean_the_Young]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

For Fallout 4 I want a massive open world, preferably in a northern city like Boston or a southern one like New Orleans. V.A.T.S. to make a return. Multiple factions. An expansion of quests and lore. Revitalization of creatures, with highly powerful critical attacks and a difficulty rise in all settings. More customization of weapons and a reduction in repair requirements.

I don't know about the difficulty mechanics (that's more of personal taste fit for modding, in my view: or some variation of FNV's hardcore mode), but I agree that the next Fallout should be based around another city.

Not at all tooting my own horn, but you might enjoy reading my outlines for 'Fallout: Orleans', a setting/story/scenario creation experiment you can read over in my sig.

[Kaiser Shepard]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

 I suppose that by now a link like this one will be greeted with raspberries:

forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1425377-fallout-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-thread-96/

First couple of posts are hilarious. Paraphrasing: "the game should be about me because I'm the main character." Beth fans in a nutshell.

I usually stay away from Beth-threads. Suggestions always end with "I want Fallout to be in (insert random European/Chinese city) next."

Unless Obsidian is developing the next title, I'll just be watching how Bethesda re-releases Skyrim but adds guns and a lot of cussing. With the same bland storylines, characters, and juvenile dialogue.



Who hires these writers?

Steel be with you.

[Dean_the_Young]

bussinrounds wrote...

Bethesda can craft a nice world (dungeon design/layout is a joke though) but unfortunately that's where the positives end. Their gameplay (combat), story elements (writing,characters,dialogs, plots), quest design/choices & consequences and RPG mechanics are really lame.

I guess ppl that like their game are the types that are just content to wander around in some pretty open world and don't really care about deeper RPG elements. They're looking to get IMMERSED in a sim like experience.

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the conclusion. Avoiding the 'what is an RPG' question, I think that it should be pointed out that there are different ways to tell different sort of stories.

RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age tell a story through a relatively narrow and forward direction. Mass Effect is Commander Shepard's story, it centers around him/her, and there's no real way to avoid it and no real alternative. While the Mass Effect universe is a massive place in theory, we never get to see much of it or get into the nuances of the background setting. Our exposure to these other places primarily comes from a very, very small number of exposition characters (Tali for the Quarians, for example), and only through the focus on these characters. This is not a bad thing, as focusing on a smaller cast allows them to be more developed and focus on a story allows a longer experience, but with focus comes a lack of breadth. Bioware-style RPGs put the crux story on a plate infront of you, and what they give is pretty much all you get.

Bethesda-style RPGs trade focus for span. The story being told isn't so much the central plotline as much as it is the setting itself: the struggling of the Capital Wasteland in the face of monsters and malnutrition, or the war of the Mohave. While individual characters don't have the depth or development of, say, a Bioware companion, the game trades by having a lot more of them in many more contexts... as well as a much more liberal usage of exploration and lore-discovery through books/computers/environment than broader RPGs. Far less of the story is given straight to you, but you can reach out and get a lot more little bits on your own.

These are both enjoyable styles of RPGs for people: not necessicarily at the same time for all, but it's nothing to apologize or feel lesser about for enjoying. You speak of inferior quests for the Bethesda games, but in many respects I enjoyed the quest style of FO3 and FNV far more than anything in ME1-3: the usage of the radio to give cues, a different type of exploration which required travel and dungeon crawls to get to, and a more concrete sense of reactivity to demonstrate the results of a quest than what often comes from the Mass Effect or Dragon Age settings.

[KOM_95]

I think announcement next year with an autumn 2014 release.

[brettc893]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

 I suppose that by now a link like this one will be greeted with raspberries:

forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1425377-fallout-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-thread-96/

First couple of posts are hilarious. Paraphrasing: "the game should be about me because I'm the main character." Beth fans in a nutshell.

I usually stay away from Beth-threads. Suggestions always end with "I want Fallout to be in (insert random European/Chinese city) next."

Unless Obsidian is developing the next title, I'll just be watching how Bethesda re-releases Skyrim but adds guns and a lot of cussing. With the same bland storylines, characters, and juvenile dialogue.



Who hires these writers?

Oh lord, that takes me back...

I was a Bethesda fan on those forums for a long while and a top poster before I migrated here, and the Stories I could tell you guys...

A small section of that place is intelligent, lore loving individuals. I liked them, and they who were I was friends with.

But the vast majority, Jesus Christ You guys think it's bad here? Too much negativity is nothing in comparison to zealotry and sychophantics, trust me. Pointing out flaws improves a series, but acting like it's a flawless second coming stagnates it, like a sickness.

[Addai]

Gatt9 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Gatt9, you sound like one of those conspiracy newsletter guys. Maybe you have a career with the Lone Gunmen. Not a thing you said makes any sense. But Morrowind nostalgism is a terrible, wasting disease- like corprus. Only more annoying to non-sufferers.

There's a surprise,  the guy gushing about Bethesda didn't bother to google anything I said and calls me a conspiracy theorist.

You really don't know very much about the company you're cheering do you?

LOL, I really don't care about your axes to grind.

[Addai]

brettc893 wrote...

A small section of that place is intelligent, lore loving individuals. I liked them, and they who were I was friends with.

But the vast majority, Jesus Christ You guys think it's bad here? Too much negativity is nothing in comparison to zealotry and sychophantics, trust me. Pointing out flaws improves a series, but acting like it's a flawless second coming stagnates it, like a sickness.

Bethsoft forum is one long-winded rendition of your kind of ranting in thread after thread.  BSN has nothing on it for negativity.

[Addai]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

These are both enjoyable styles of RPGs for people: not necessicarily at the same time for all, but it's nothing to apologize or feel lesser about for enjoying. You speak of inferior quests for the Bethesda games, but in many respects I enjoyed the quest style of FO3 and FNV far more than anything in ME1-3: the usage of the radio to give cues, a different type of exploration which required travel and dungeon crawls to get to, and a more concrete sense of reactivity to demonstrate the results of a quest than what often comes from the Mass Effect or Dragon Age settings.

All well said.

[bussinrounds]

termokanden wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

As the most popular/biggest devs of "RPGs" these days, they are the ones at the forefront for dumbing them down for mass consuption so they will appeal to the twitch crowd and turning them into more of an action/adventure type game, which we know are alot more popular and better selling than true RPGs.

I really want to know how a game like Fallout 3 or Skyrim appeals to the "twitch crowd". Exploration and atmosphere are a huge part of these games, and that actually works best with a bit of patience. There are no multiplayer modes and leaderboards. These games don't revolve around your personal twitch skills in the slightest.

And the comment about Bethesda making games for people who hate RPGs? Really? I played just about every old-school computer RPG out there, spent a rather large part of my youth playing pen and paper RPGs and guess what, I still like at least some of Bethesda's games.

   Wat??  They do relvolve around player skills. Because they have action gameplay.     It doesn't need MP modes and leaderboaeds to appeal to the twitch crowd.  lol

   I have friends which are casual players and normally play games like CoD, but they have showed interest in games like Oblivion/Skyrim and the new Fallouts, say, because of the AWESOME ACTION gameplay.   These ppl would never go near a proper traditonal RPG that relies on character skill/dice rolls, ect.. over player skill.  Don't you think Bethesda and these publishers know that ?    Why do you think we had to go the kickstarter route for the most part to get actual RPGs made again ?

 

Modifié par bussinrounds, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[brettc893]

Addai67 wrote...

brettc893 wrote...

A small section of that place is intelligent, lore loving individuals. I liked them, and they who were I was friends with.

But the vast majority, Jesus Christ You guys think it's bad here? Too much negativity is nothing in comparison to zealotry and sychophantics, trust me. Pointing out flaws improves a series, but acting like it's a flawless second coming stagnates it, like a sickness.

Bethsoft forum is one long-winded rendition of your kind of ranting in thread after thread.  BSN has nothing on it for negativity.

Then it's changed significantly in the months I've been gone.

Also, thread after thread? Seriously? lol Cry more, ya simpering sycophantic son of a po-faced profiteer. Sorry my opinion offends you so much, but it's not wrong and you have yet to put a dent in it.

Quit being a personification of a stereotype, because I have a feeling you're better than that.

Modifié par brettc893, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:07 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Personally, Fallout 3/NV, Oblivion, Skyrim, et al are way too slow, clunky and awkward to appeal to my twitch gameplay tendencies.

I enjoyed popping moles in the first two CoD games, Day of Defeat, CS and UT. Amongst other games. I still play DoD: Source and CoD 2 every once in a while too.

But if I approached a game like Fallout 3/NV in the same way, I'd get nowhere fast. Too slow, too clunky, too awkward. Same holds true for Deus Ex, Bioshock, Bloodlines, etc.

I'm not a fan of Fallout 3, but I don't get that specific argument. The #1 draw for Bethesda games is the open world exploration aspect. Morrowind still sold ~5 million copies after all. Even more impressive considering how it was only on the Xbox/PC.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[termokanden]

bussinrounds wrote...

Wat??  They do relvolve around player skills. Because they have action gameplay.     It doesn't need MP modes and leaderboaeds to appeal to the twitch crowd.  lol

You really can't tell the difference between turtle-speed Skyrim and twitchy CoD? Sure you have to press buttons and you can't wait around all day, but I hardly consider Bethesda's open world games twitch gaming, and they don't require much skill to play. In FO3 you even have the pause-and-plan gameplay so you don't have to aim for yourself.

 

I have friends which are casual players and normally play games like CoD, but they have showed interest in games like Oblivion/Skyrim and the new Fallouts, say, because of the AWESOME ACTION gameplay.   These ppl would never go near a proper traditonal RPG that relies on character skill/dice rolls, ect.. over player skill.  Don't you think Bethesda and these publishers know that ?    Why do you think we had to go the kickstarter route for the most part to get actual RPGs made again ?

Of course they do. But the thing is that I actually enjoy a game like Skyrim even though I also enjoy "hardcore"/oldschool RPGs. I have also spent some money on Project Eternity because I am hoping for more oldschool RPGs to be made.

I don't think the Bethesda bashing helps anyone. Showing there's a market for other types of RPGs does, however.

CrustyBot wrote...

Personally, Fallout 3/NV, Oblivion, Skyrim, et al are way too slow, clunky and awkward to appeal to my twitch gameplay tendencies.

Exactly my point. I played my share of twitch games like CoD, Counter Strike, the Quakes, you name it. Skyrim and FO3 are both very slow and quite frankly not very challenging compared to those, from an FPS perspective anyway.

Modifié par termokanden, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:36 .

[slimgrin]

In the end, if it's to be an action RPG, or something else, I want an action RPG. Quite frankly tired of action RPG's being labeled as shallow when they can deliver all the depth a traditional one can. A moot point anyway. FO4 will be an action RPG, made by Bethesda.

[bussinrounds]

termokanden wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

Wat??  They do relvolve around player skills. Because they have action gameplay.     It doesn't need MP modes and leaderboaeds to appeal to the twitch crowd.  lol

You really can't tell the difference between turtle-speed Skyrim and twitchy CoD? Sure you have to press buttons and you can't wait around all day, but I hardly consider Bethesda's open world games twitch gaming, and they don't require much skill to play. In FO3 you even have the pause-and-plan gameplay so you don't have to aim for yourself.

 

I have friends which are casual players and normally play games like CoD, but they have showed interest in games like Oblivion/Skyrim and the new Fallouts, say, because of the AWESOME ACTION gameplay.   These ppl would never go near a proper traditonal RPG that relies on character skill/dice rolls, ect.. over player skill.  Don't you think Bethesda and these publishers know that ?    Why do you think we had to go the kickstarter route for the most part to get actual RPGs made again ?

Of course they do. But the thing is that I actually enjoy a game like Skyrim even though I also enjoy "hardcore"/oldschool RPGs. I have also spent some money on Project Eternity because I am hoping for more oldschool RPGs to be made.

I don't think the Bethesda bashing helps anyone. Showing there's a market for other types of RPGs does, however.

CrustyBot wrote...

Personally, Fallout 3/NV, Oblivion, Skyrim, et al are way too slow, clunky and awkward to appeal to my twitch gameplay tendencies.

Exactly my point. I played my share of twitch games like CoD, Counter Strike, the Quakes, you name it. Skyrim and FO3 are both very slow and quite frankly not very challenging compared to those, from an FPS perspective anyway.

Nobodys saying they're the exact same thing and of course the run-n-gun shooters or hack and slash all out action games are more twitchy.  But the gameplay in these modern action RPGs resembles those games more than it does the hardcore/oldschool RPGs, that's for damn sure.

  And I don't even dislike action gameplay, although it may sound like that.  But I do feel like the gameplay in most all action RPGs is rather weak and not up to par with the gameplay of true action games.  Like I said before, it's like the weak RPG mechanics are sort of an excuse for the bad combat and vice versa.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:54 .

[termokanden]

No it's nothing like a turn-based RPG for example, and we can also agree that the combat mechanics aren't all that great. Skyrim had combat improvements though.

I wouldn't play those games if not for the exploration and all the lore you get outside of the main quest.

[naughty99]

Never played Baldur's Gate, FO1&2, Planescape Torment or any of the games released during that period, but I played earlier games like Ultima 3, Temple of Apshai, some of the Wizardry games, etc. These games were able to simulate THAC0 scores and dice rolls, and I enjoyed the heck out of them at the time. But I found text adventure games like Zork to be actually a little closer to recreating what it was like to play a pen and paper RPG.

The most important moment in a role playing game is when your GM describes the environment and setting, and asks "Now, what would you like to do?" Pen and paper RPGs have never been about the dice rolls. What they are about is role playing a character, being able to do whatever you think that character would want to do, talk to any NPC in the world, go where you think that character would want to go, every encounter has infinite possibilities. The narrative emerges naturally out of the interaction between the players and NPCs, with the GM playing the part of the NPCs. Dice rolls and attributes are very useful tools, but they are not the be-all and end-all of a role playing game.

It was not until many years later when I tried Fallout 3 that I first encountered a video game that actually facilitated role playing to some extent, a massive sandbox game world where you can almost go anywhere and do anything you think your character would want to do, with some limits of course. There are tech limitations, and videogames are never going to compare with the collective imaginations of a group of players and GM, but forget about the dice rolls and saving throws, they are closer today than they were 20 years ago.

Later I tried other sandbox games, such as Oblivion, Fallout New Vegas, Morrowind and Skyrim, as well as more linear, cinematic style RPGs like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Witcher series. Both approaches can be lots of fun; however, the sandbox style open world game has a bit more common ground with pen and paper games because you have so much more freedom to do whatever you think your character would want to do. However, I am looking forward to trying some of the highly acclaimed older "dice roll" games that I missed out on, like Baldur's Gate and the first Fallout game, as well as the upcoming Project Eternity and Wasteland 2.

Modifié par naughty99, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:15 .

[bussinrounds]

termokanden wrote...

No it's nothing like a turn-based RPG for example, and we can also agree that the combat mechanics aren't all that great. Skyrim had combat improvements though.

I wouldn't play those games if not for the exploration and all the lore you get outside of the main quest.

  But a game like Skyrim is based around the weak combat, that's the problem.  What happenes when you explore or take quests, what does it lead to ?

It's not like it has all these other functions like doing archeology, ect.. or resolving these quests in all these different ways.

 And Naughty, I get what you're saying and the games kinda have the right idea and sound good, as far as being able to go wherever you want and the non-linearity of it all (quests, ect..) but it's just the exceution which is so heavily flawed.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[termokanden]

Well I don't hate the combat. I felt the same way about Bloodlines actually (calm down, I am not saying they are the same ). You had to fight at least some of the time in that as well, and the combat system was quite clunky. It didn't ruin the game.

Modifié par termokanden, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[bussinrounds]

termokanden wrote...

Well I don't hate the combat. I felt the same way about Bloodlines actually (calm down, I am not saying they are the same ). You had to fight at least some of the time in that as well, and the combat system was quite clunky. It didn't ruin the game.

  Yes, the combat was not good in Bloodlines either, but at least the story elements were.  Same goes for Planescape and MotB.

[brettc893]

slimgrin wrote...

In the end, if it's to be an action RPG, or something else, I want an action RPG. Quite frankly tired of action RPG's being labeled as shallow when they can deliver all the depth a traditional one can. A moot point anyway. FO4 will be an action RPG, made by Bethesda.

This is gonna be controversial, but I think Bethesda needs to nut up and ditch 3rd Person in their games all together.

That would allow them to significantly improve upon the gameplay by only having to focus on a first person experience. Tighten up the shooting, HUD, etc. If you're going to make a Shooter/RPG Hybrid, the shooter half shouldn't be terrible.

[Fast Jimmy]

bussinrounds wrote...

Nobodys saying they're the exact same thing and of course the run-n-gun shooters or hack and slash all out action games are more twitchy.  But the gameplay in these modern action RPGs resembles those games more than it does the hardcore/oldschool RPGs, that's for damn sure.

  And I don't even dislike action gameplay, although it may sound like that.  But I do feel like the gameplay in most all action RPGs is rather weak and not up to par with the gameplay of true action games.  Like I said before, it's like the weak RPG mechanics are sort of an excuse for the bad combat and vice versa.

This is partially my feelings as well. Bioware has frequently said "you can't be all things to all fans." For Bioware to put all story, quests, character development, items, puzzles, conversations, books, lore descriptions, Codex entries, Choice and Consequence and other things in their games that are more representative of traditional RPGs, there is less time in the day for combat development. Couple that with the fact that most RPG players want more complex encounter designs than just button mashing, and combat becomes even more difficult to design for.

To throw in action gameplay elements, when some games like Bayonetta pretty much ONLY have to spend the vast majority of their resources on action gameplay, is going to create a huge disparity. The action gameplay just isn't going to be on the same level, so it may appear as a sub-standard product. Sticking with more traditional RPG-type combat means that the gameplay elements will be compared with other RPGs... meaning the comparissons/expectations will be a little more fair (since other RPGs would have the same laundry list of features the developers would also have to be worried about).

Would I like a DA game where my character could aim for an enemy's legs and wipe them out from underneath them, instead of being totally unreactive to my animation until someone's health bar reaches zero? Where I could rain fire down and have the enemies run around while burning, instead of having everyone appear just as untouched as when the fight started? Where there is a scene where I have an army charging behind me and we come crashing down on an opposing force, instead of just having ten allies at most on screen, fighting a never-ending stream of enemeis, but only 10 enemies at a time?

Of course. All of those things would be awesome. Especially if they could balance out a system that is more action-y and one that you could use a more "pause-and-play" and tactical approach.

But I realize that for me to get these things, that means resources are being spent elsewhere. And that it costs. I think Mass Effect 3 had some of the best action gameplay elements of the series. It also had some of the most corner-cutting on the Priority Earth mission I've seen in gaming in a long time. Instead of being the triumphant ending to a series, it was a poorly pasted together scene of requests that did not come together at all. 

Is ME3's more action-y combat to blame? I can't say that with any level of certainty. But in order to get that level of combat, sacrifices had to be made in resources. A similar scenario can be seen in DA2. Where the games Bioware tres to achieve a higher level of action gameplay (and sitll not achieve the level of quliaty seen in the more traditionally action genres, BTW), we have seen what many fans view as cuts to the story, characters and choice & consequence mechanics. Whether that is truly what is happening, or if that is tied to action combat can be debated. But the correlation is there.

Which leads me to say "yeah, it would be cool if blah, blah, blah were to happen, but let's focus on making a solid game first, then next go round we'll try some of the more crazy ideas."