87 réponses à ce sujet

[Rosalina is my BabyCakes]

When quest glitches up and you can't do them or you miss out on something because of it.

 

 

I always think of that dumb quest from Fallout NV where you have to get rid of Cachino from the Gomorrah Casino.

You had to do that quest in a pacific way or else you wouldn't be able to get the Diamond Pipboy.  missed out on it twice between different characters because of it.

 

Not to forget that they never fixed it on the female body -__-

 

Edit: oh yeah, and not being able to change your characters face is annoying too.

[Abraham_uk]

Old School:
Rolls a mage. Casts one spell.
Well I'm going to call it a day. I'm going to take a nap. 
 
New School:
Rolls a mage. Casts one spell.
Well everything is dead. That was easy.




Old School:
Rolls a rogue. Goes into stealth.
Stealth doesn't work and the rogue dies.
 
New School:
Rolls a rogue. Goes into stealth.
Assuming no mages are in the party, the rogue stabs everything to death.



 
 
Old School:
Rolls a warrior. Has access to every weapon on the planet.
 
New School:
Rolls a warrior. Only has access to weapon & Shield and 2 Hand.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Since when did your decsions matter with regards the plot of Origins? No matter what you do, the main plot is the same. You can alter the outcome of some side plots, and you can change who you're shagging - and of course, you can significantly impact what happens after the game - but the game's core story follows the same path regardless of your actions.

 
With different paths. For example:
 
-Your choice of Origin.
-Deciding to defend Redcliffe which leads to a series of side quests and further consequences.
-Siding with the werewolves or elves (the former leading to the destruction of the elf camp).

-Working with the Andraste cultists or not.
-Surrendering or being defeated by Ser Catherine leading to a near hour long subplot to escape from prison.
-Choosing whether to save Connor by going into the fade or kill him - both leading to two different paths to get to your outcome.
-Losing the landsmeet.
 
This is also a simplification of your choices here. Take the Connor example, you can also "save" him but let the demon continue to live within him in return for a lesson in blood magic, you can also choose how to get into the fade to save him as well as who to send in. That's several options for one quest with three different outcomes. In the case of whether you work with the cultists or not, you can work with them and then betray them in the end if you so choose to. In Skyrim, when it comes to taking a side, you make your decision and then that's it, you can't betray them later because of limitations in the crappy quest design.
 
I could go on. Ultimately, yeah, the story in Origins has the same outcome (asides from the endings) but the paths to said outcome are all different including who you take along with you (which can lead to betrayals in the case of Lelianna and Zevran). In fact just the ability to kill or turn away companions is more freedom than Skyrim offers for its main plot where it forces its main characters onto you and you're forced to be their errand runner whether you like it or not.
 
Pearls Before Swine (a simple side quest in Origins) has more solutions and three different outcomes than most quests in Skyrim and it's a simple side quest.
 
So yeah, Origins is not comparable to a linear plot like Skyrim which truly is a linear story with one illusionary decision (similar to putting either Harrowmont or Behlen on the throne). It has far more paths open to the player to complete quests (including side quests) along with options thrown in for the sake of role-playing whereas Skyrim at best gives us two dialogue options and two choices (if we at all get a choice and half the time we don't - there's no option to work against the thieves guild in Riften for example or destroy the Black-briars, I mean how hard could it be to write a subplot which involves you working against the corruption in Riften?) Skyrim just isn't a good RPG.

 

Bethesda should take notes from Obsidian on how to make an open-world sandbox game whilst having non-linear quest design (New Vegas).

[Endurium]

- Escort. Missions. Mostly from when I played WoW, and Divinity 2's Flames of Vengeance end mission

 

- Timed. Dialog.

 

- Auto. Dialog. It's my character, dammit, let me control what's being said

 

- Invisible walls meant solely to shoehorn us into a linear path

 

- Companion AI

 

- My character meets antagonist and suffers an attack of incompetence via scripted cutscene while the antagonist pulls out godlike powers and trounces me flawlessly

 

- I place my team strategically in case we're attacked while talking to an NPC; conversation script pulls everyone into the middle of the area for the sake of perfect camera shots. We are subsequently surrounded on all sides by enemies who materialize out of nothingness.

 

- Paraphrased responses that totally miss the expected result

 

- Companions of opposing alignment/personality/motives forced into my immediate group (looking at you NWN2 OC)

[PhroXenGold]

 
With different paths. For example:
 
-Your choice of Origin.
-Deciding to defend Redcliffe which leads to a series of side quests and further consequences.
-Siding with the werewolves or elves (the former leading to the destruction of the elf camp).

-Working with the Andraste cultists or not.
-Surrendering or being defeated by Ser Catherine leading to a near hour long subplot to escape from prison.
-Choosing whether to save Connor by going into the fade or kill him - both leading to two different paths to get to your outcome.
-Losing the landsmeet.
 
This is also a simplification of your choices here. Take the Connor example, you can also "save" him but let the demon continue to live within him in return for a lesson in blood magic, you can also choose how to get into the fade to save him as well as who to send in. That's several options for one quest with three different outcomes. In the case of whether you work with the cultists or not, you can work with them and then betray them in the end if you so choose to. In Skyrim, when it comes to taking a side, you make your decision and then that's it, you can't betray them later because of limitations in the crappy quest design.
 
I could go on. Ultimately, yeah, the story in Origins has the same outcome (asides from the endings) but the paths to said outcome are all different including who you take along with you (which can lead to betrayals in the case of Lelianna and Zevran). In fact just the ability to kill or turn away companions is more freedom than Skyrim offers for its main plot where it forces its main characters onto you and you're forced to be their errand runner whether you like it or not.
 
Pearls Before Swine (a simple side quest in Origins) has more solutions and three different outcomes than most quests in Skyrim and it's a simple side quest.
 
So yeah, Origins is not comparable to a linear plot like Skyrim which truly is a linear story with one illusionary decision (similar to putting either Harrowmont or Behlen on the throne). It has far more paths open to the player to complete quests (including side quests) along with options thrown in for the sake of role-playing whereas Skyrim at best gives us two dialogue options and two choices (if we at all get a choice and half the time we don't - there's no option to work against the thieves guild in Riften for example or destroy the Black-briars, I mean how hard could it be to write a subplot which involves you working against the corruption in Riften?) Skyrim just isn't a good RPG.

 

Bethesda should take notes from Obsidian on how to make an open-world sandbox game whilst having non-linear quest design (New Vegas).

 

Your choices might have more impact than Skyrim, but in the end, all the stuff you mention just reinforces my point. All your decisions ever impact is side quests, characters and the post-game world. Nothing you do actually impacts what is happening with regards the overall plot or the course of the game. It happens the same regardless of the choices you make.

 

So yeah, I guess never completely stated it outright, so in response to the original question, this is my biggest annoyance in RPGs: The lack of branching plots and diverging content. The absence of any of decisions that actually impact the course of the game.

[Commander Rpg]

Also

 

Insane easy (not "fast", easy) travel, when there is the possibility to view the world, unlike what happens when you have a bi-dimensional game and no chances to simulate travel except putting lots and lots of scripted areas in the middle.

At least Fallout 1 and 2 got it right, when it was their time.

[Jstatham1227]

when you companions glitch out and you lose them. 

 

 

damn it illia, why'd you leave me?

 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Got to love the armor.

[Abraham_uk]

The main character is a bad ass killing everything in sight.

Then meets a woman and all of a sudden this brash confident warrior says "umm yeah. That is... well... I".

 

After lots of stuttering the main character asks the woman on a date.

By date I mean she permanently joins the party.

It's okay. This forced romance won't be too cringe worthy. Right?

 

So what is the love interest like?

She is amazing in combat with some cool spells and a weird looking weapon. As for her personality though...

Imagine Carly Rae Jepsen singing "I really, really, really, really like you".

Now imagine that being the entirety of her personality.

 

Sadly the main character is too dumb to realise she fancies him.

 

Are there any games with writing this weak?

[RobRam10]

No helmets

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

No Anatomicalycorrect bits. i wanna see em waggle.

[Zanallen]

Looting. I hate looting.

[Abraham_uk]

This is not so much a criticism about games but rather a counter to criticism of games.

 

You know the whole "ugh this character is whiney" brush that mopey and moody characters are often lumped under.

For some reason a highly complex and interesting character such as Cloud (From FFVII) is just dismissed because he's moody?

 

Months ago I made a post about how this criticism bothered me regarding Fenris and Anders. So here is me doing the same but for Final Fantasy VII.

 

I reckon the reason that people don't like that kind of character is because they're downers. Imagine being friends with someone who looks gloomy, or someone who is complaining all the time. This is an individual who is eventually going to get on your nerves. This is not a likeable trait. It is indeed a character flaw.

 

When it comes to fictional characters, it's often the flaws that make characters interesting. Flaws give characters internal conflict and a chance for redemption.

 

In Final Fantasy VII all of the main characters have some kind of daemon that they have to overcome.

 

 

Yuffie has her greed and anxiety over her civilisation coming to an end to contend with.

Cloud has his bad experiences, repressed memories and identity crisis to overcome.

Barret has anger issues over what happened to the people he loved to overcome.

Cait Sith has some loyalty issues that need to be resolved.

Vincent is trying to come to terms with what he is.

Tifa is trying to remain optimistic in a world that is ultimately broken.

Aris just wants to live an ordinary life but is unable to because of her unique heritage.

Red is a lonely soul who has lost his family and has some daddy issues to boot.

Cid has had all of his dreams taken from him. His dream of reaching the stars and the freedom of the skies snatched from his grasp.

 

On the surface this crew are a moody and grumpy lot.

Trust me. I can't think of a more "moody" crew than the protagonists of Final Fantasy VII.

 

However their shared pain unites them. They work through their issues. Some of them never have their issues fully resolved.

However their togetherness, camaraderie and fellowship enables us to see the better nature of all of these characters.

The initially dysfunctional group eventually go through hell and back to save the day as a family.

 

Final Fantasy VII may not be the best game of that series. However at least in my mind, this game nailed the characters.

It nailed the interactions. It is proof that "moody" characters can be interesting.

This is why at least from my point of view I find the "moody" criticism a bit lacking in terms of critique.