1378 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

Doesn't like that Dlux is acting as though his opinion is fact, yet claimed one narrative is objectively better than the other.

 

Seems legit.

This isn't a question of how much I personally liked the respective stories, it's a question of how well the story was presented. It's the same sort of criticism levied against ME3's endings, they're not just hated because people dislike them, they're hated because they break narrative conventions and generally make no sense.

 

Bethesda has a poor track record of writing nuanced, internally consistent stories with depth in narrative and character development, mainly because their focus isn't to deliver a great story like BioWare's, but a great open world gameplay experience. Fallout 4 just happens to do a better job than Fallout 3 in terms of the narrative, the same way Skyrim's story was a step above Oblivion's.

 

Is Fallout 4's story amazing? No. But it's better than Fallout 3's, purely because it's presented better.

[Kalas Magnus]

Miniguns benefit massively from magical enchantments Legendary modifiers. Find one with + explosive or +fire damage or whatever, and it applies to every single bullet. It outright doubles the weapon's damage output, so while it's still incredibly inefficient at least the minigun now actually kills stuff.

 

Big guns were never viable in any Fallout game, anyway, save the OP as hell BOZAR in FO2. It's a shame Bethesda made them just as unviable as before, however. Like in FO3 and NV, by far the best and most ammo-efficient weapon type are the semi-autos.

minigun with explosive is outright broken. but then all explosives are.

[Cyonan]

This isn't a question of how much I personally liked the respective stories, it's a question of how well the story was presented. It's the same sort of criticism levied against ME3's endings, they're not just hated because people dislike them, they're hated because they break narrative conventions and generally make no sense.

 

Bethesda has a poor track record of writing nuanced, internally consistent stories with depth in narrative and character development, mainly because their focus isn't to deliver a great story like BioWare's, but a great open world gameplay experience. Fallout 4 just happens to do a better job than Fallout 3 in terms of the narrative, the same way Skyrim's story was a step above Oblivion's.

 

Is Fallout 4's story amazing? No. But it's better than Fallout 3's, purely because it's presented better.

 

That's not how being objective works. You can't prove that Skyrim's story is better than Oblivion's.

 

Yeah you can point to a bunch of things and say "they did this better", but that's just your opinion that those things overall make it a better story. I still think that Skyrim had the weaker story because it was overshadowed by sub plots(mainly the civil war) and the world just doesn't react to you saving it.

 

You can objectively point out that the majority of people wont enjoy a story that does certain things, but you can't really tell people that they're wrong for thinking such a story is good despite that.

[Commander Rpg]

That's not how being objective works. You can't prove that Skyrim's story is better than Oblivion's.

Objectiveness states a fact (quality, nature, color, volume etc.) that can be highlighted regardless of tastes.

I can say that game X has a strong and better story than Y, and I can show why by pointing at the strengths and weaknesses of both.

I can also say that, despite X having a better story than Y, I like Y more, but this is an opinion.

 

Summarizing

 

Fact: whatever objective element is detectable by the senses and the intellect, regardless of any preference.

Opinion: my personal judgement on the matter, which is personal and based on preferences, tastes and appreciations.

 

Usually an objectively good game should meet with appreciations, and then there are cases where bad games are wildly acclaimed. It's the same reason why people, having taste for a specific game, still don't appreciate it or appreciate it for the wrong reasons, which are considering it despite of its objective qualities.

[pdusen]

Maybe I'm weird, but I rate the games I play as games instead of genre-members. If a game has fewer strong RPG elements but the overall experience is better, I'm going to rate it better, period. I like RPGs but I don't consider their existing conventions to be some sort of gold standard.

By the way, seriously guys, stop feeding dlux.

[Cyonan]

Objectiveness states a fact (quality, nature, color, volume etc.) that can be highlighted regardless of tastes.

I can say that game X has a strong and better story than Y, and I can show why by pointing at the strengths and weaknesses of both.

I can also say that, despite X having a better story than Y, I like Y more, but this is an opinion.

 

Summarizing

 

Fact: whatever objective element is detectable by the senses and the intellect, regardless of any preference.

Opinion: my personal judgement on the matter, which is personal and based on preferences, tastes and appreciations.

 

Usually an objectively good game should meet with appreciations, and then there are cases where bad games are wildly acclaimed. It's the same reason why people, having taste for a specific game, still don't appreciate it or appreciate it for the wrong reasons, which are considering it despite of its objective qualities.

 

but different people put different values on the various strengths and weaknesses.

 

It's like saying "Car A is faster than car B, so it's objectively better". However, you're completely ignoring the fact that car B might get better mileage which somebody else might consider more important than speed. To that person, car B is better.

 

You cannot say Fallout 4 and Skyrim are objectively better stories than Fallout 3 and Oblivion regardless of personal tastes. The majority of people being of that opinion(assuming that is even true) does not make it fact.

[Commander Rpg]

but different people put different values on the various strengths and weaknesses.

Values are opinions. So they don't count.

 

 

It's like saying "Car A is faster than car B, so it's objectively better". However, you're completely ignoring the fact that car B might get better mileage which somebody else might consider more important than speed. To that person, car B is better.

If the car engine in the X car goes faster and runs better than the engine in the Y car, given that there are no other substantial differences in other sectors, the X car is better because its quality shows and I can feel it with my five senses and my reason.

 

Another system to esteem quality comes when judging sport cars. If on one side I have a Lamborghini Diablo, and on the other side I have a Ford Fiesta, despite my personal taste for the Ford I have to say the Diablo is better.

Same reason applies to Fallout.

 

 

You cannot say Fallout 4 and Skyrim are objectively better stories than Fallout 3 and Oblivion regardless of personal tastes. The majority of people being of that opinion(assuming that is even true) does not make it fact.

 

I can say three things about a script/screenplay.

 

If it has a good subject: if it's consistent, if it's coherent.

The narration: if it is smooth and flowing to read, if it has not incoherencies like plot holes, or if it does come to a conclusion, rather than being with no rhyme or reason.

The quality of the writing itself: the person can write in a correct English, fluent and with the right choice of words, tenses etc.

 

These are all facts. By these facts, I can say if a story is better or not. I can say the better story's not for me and that I don't like it, but I cannot say it's poorly done.

 

Same for the mainly objective things. The sun gives us warmth, but some like the weather less warm and some more warm, you can't deny, however, that the sun gives warmth.

 

End of the cycle.

[Cyonan]

Values are opinions. So they don't count.

 

If the car engine in the X car goes faster and runs better than the engine in the Y car, given that there are no other substantial differences in other sectors, the X car is better because its quality shows and I can feel it with my five senses and my reason.

 

Another system to esteem quality comes when judging sport cars. If on one side I have a Lamborghini Diablo, and on the other side I have a Ford Fiesta, despite my personal taste for the Ford I have to say the Diablo is better.

Same reason applies to Fallout.

 

 

I can say three things about a script/screenplay.

 

If it has a good subject: if it's consistent, if it's coherent.

The narration: if it is smooth and flowing to read, if it has not incoherencies like plot holes, or if it does come to a conclusion, rather than being with no rhyme or reason.

The quality of the writing itself: the person can write in a correct English, fluent and with the right choice of words, tenses etc.

 

These are all facts. By these facts, I can say if a story is better or not. I can say the better story's not for me and that I don't like it, but I cannot say it's poorly done.

 

Same for the mainly objective things. The sun gives us warmth, but some like the weather less warm and some more warm, you can't deny, however, that the sun gives warmth.

 

End of the cycle.

 

You can say a lot of objective things about individual parts of a story, but in order to even try to claim "objectively better" it has to be beat the other out in absolutely every single regard. That does not apply to Bethesda's games.

 

Technically one doesn't even have to pick the Diablo over the Fiesta. People might look at you like you're crazy for picking the Fiesta, but you still don't have to say the Diablo is better.

 

Saying that Fallout 4 has a more consistent story is like saying the sun provides us with warmth. However saying that, simply because of that consistency, that automatically makes it better than Fallout 3 is saying that warm weather is better than cold weather. It's an opinion.

 

Plus this really isn't a case of a good story vs a poor story. It's a poor story vs a poor story. The draw of a Bethesda game is definitely not the story.

[Commander Rpg]

Technically one doesn't even have to pick the Diablo over the Fiesta. People might look at you like you're crazy for picking the Fiesta, but you still don't have to say the Diablo is better.

This where the reasoning you're using doesn't work. The Diablo is better because it's compared among the sport cars. The Fiesta, for its characteristics, is beyond every statistic for a sport car. It's the same considering Fallout 4 an rpg (as it is claimed) and saying it's a poor game because the rpg part is absent.

I cannot avoid to consider the context when speaking objectively.

In my opinion (but also objectively) Fallout 4 fails as an rpg game as it is sold, so it's not better than F3. However, if you want to contextualise it into a wider range of games, it could turn out that Fallout 4 is an overall better game than Fallout 3. Again, as an RPG it fails.

[Cyonan]

This where the reasoning you're using doesn't work. The Diablo is better because it's compared among the sport cars. The Fiesta, for its characteristics, is beyond every statistic for a sport car. It's the same considering Fallout 4 an rpg (as it is claimed) and saying it's a poor game because the rpg part is absent.

I cannot avoid to consider the context when speaking objectively.

In my opinion (but also objectively) Fallout 4 fails as an rpg game as it is sold, so it's not better than F3. However, if you want to contextualise it into a wider range of games, it could turn out that Fallout 4 is an overall better game than Fallout 3. Again, as an RPG it fails.

 

The fact that we can go 40+ pages on a thread and still not have a solid definition as to what a RPG actually is alone should suggest to you just how subjective one game being "better" than another is, even if we are supposed to be judging it based on "which is better as a RPG".

 

The problem is that those are largely pointless labels and ultimately what people are really trying to say is "Fallout 3 fits my definition of RPG more than Fallout 4, so I think it's the better game".

 

Otherwise you have to start making arguments as to how Fallout 3's stat system, dialogue, story, characters, etc. are all objectively better than Fallout 4's. Not just "more RPG like", but legitimately better.

[Seraphim24]

Bethesda games are pretty casual RPGs in general, ever since possibly the Morrowind expansions they streamline the game elements into a fewer abilities, fewer enemies, fewer strategies, fewer... lots of things. LIke in Skyrim you have like with magic evocation damage spell with 3 flavors, stoneskin, paralyze, mass incapacitate... enchanting is pretty much a branch of crafting.

 

Bioware games are usually more hardcore RPGs, although like Bethesda has headed in a more casual direction. Like in Dragon Age you had the three flavors of damage spells, but then a bunch of other random stuff like spirit dot-pbae spells, debuffs of damage type, life drains, AE drains, etc etc.

 

The encounters are generally more complex, ambushes with traps. mixes of melee and ranged, and so on and so forth.

 

Ultimately Bethesda games are often just quite a bit easier, honestly.

 

So, generally speaking, there really isn't much for Bioware to learn from Fallout 4, all of their earlier original game archetypes tended to be more engaging than modern Bethesda games... although given the degree of simplication in many sequels perhaps they could learn the value of at least a little bit more diverse systems.

 

The one thing they can definitely learn is even if you have a better game, you won't necessarily sell more than some other game, although since this has been true in gaming for quite some time, and in many things, for that matter, it shouldn't really be an expectation at any point.

[Seraphim24]

Moreover, my experience with hardcore games is they tend to have more.. hardcore stories I guess? I feel weird kind of saying modern Bioware games are super intense because actually the aesthetic is very pacific in many ways, but compared to Bethesda which is kind of really vanilla in many ways... not that's evil or something, to be honest depending on which games we're comparing they might not be that different.

 

I don't dislike Bethesda games really contrary to the point about sales might imply, that's simply a fact and it's not because Bethesda is secretly massively evil or something.

 

However, they are very much kind of beginner RPGs in many ways, featuring all the basics like HP, MP, classes, enemies, bosses, environments, inventory, etc, but not necessarily any more varied than that.

[Ahglock]

^ and yet I find Bethesda games to be both more hard core RPGs and to have better stories than Bioware. Define RPG and what makes a good story as I'm sure it will differ from my definition.

I find bioware to have mechanics that rely more heavily on player skill than Bethesda games and resolution based on the characters not players skill is for me the defining characteristic of a RPG. As for story I generally think bioware stories are god awful but with pretty damn slick presentation. I find Bethesda stories to be a bit better but with weaker presentation. There are way too many things that go into making a story to list.

[Seraphim24]

^ and yet I find Bethesda games to be both more hard core RPGs and to have better stories than Bioware. Define RPG and what makes a good story as I'm sure it will differ from my definition.

I find bioware to have mechanics that rely more heavily on player skill than Bethesda games and resolution based on the characters not players skill is for me the defining characteristic of a RPG. As for story I generally think bioware stories are god awful but with pretty damn slick presentation. I find Bethesda stories to be a bit better but with weaker presentation. There are way too many things that go into making a story to list.

 

RPG = Role Playing Game.

 

Why do I need to define what makes a good story?

[Commander Rpg]

Otherwise you have to start making arguments as to how Fallout 3's stat system, dialogue, story, characters, etc. are all objectively better than Fallout 4's. Not just "more RPG like", but legitimately better.

First of all, there is more rpg content in F3 than in F4, and that amount of additional content is decent enough to outclass the successor as an rpg.

Second thing, F4 makes no effort in having even a semblance of branched dialogues, the options are only 4, usually confusing and mostly redundant. Speaking of the gameplay, it is focused more on doing an action game rather than an action-rpg game.

 

The question is not defining what is rpg and what is not, but how many elements of it there are and how much they are good. F3 has still a lot more of them than F4 and they're solid enough to consider F3 an action-rpg game and F4 an action game with few and poor rpg elements. Surely not an action-rpg, or a decent rpg.

 

If you need more insights you should ask people what they like about F3 and what they're liking about F4, you could have some interesting responses.

[Ahglock]

RPG = Role Playing Game.

Why do I need to define what makes a good story?

How are you playing the role of its your skill and not the characters that resolved the action. Dragon age is more RPG Han mass effect but it's absolute lack of out of combat skills in inquisition makes it weaker than Bethesda. Though both companies are getting weaker.

And you don't have to defime either RPG or good story. The point is you can't. My beliefs on it as will pretty much every other persons in this thread will be different. I was just pointing out how subjective this all is.

[Seraphim24]

Though both companies are getting weaker

 

That's kind of the thing right there, the notion of Bioware as hardcore RPG and Bethesda as casual is kind of eroding in general as both companies become more casual.

 

There is a huge divergence between Dragon Age 1 and 2 for sure, approximately but not quite the same magnitude as between Morrowind and Oblivion.

 

Would not necessarily characterize DA as more RPG than ME, ME1 was very RPG, certainly at least as much if not more than System Shock 2.

[Lady Artifice]

How are you playing the role of its your skill and not the characters that resolved the action. Dragon age is more RPG Han mass effect but it's absolute lack of out of combat skills in inquisition makes it weaker than Bethesda. Though both companies are getting weaker.

And you don't have to defime either RPG or good story. The point is you can't. My beliefs on it as will pretty much every other persons in this thread will be different. I was just pointing out how subjective this all is.

 

Suggestions that Bioware is getting "weaker" I at least understand. I disliked the combat in Inquisition as well. But what is it about Bethesda's recent games that makes you see the company as actually declining? For all the remaining flaws, I predominantly see improvement. 

[Cyonan]

First of all, there is more rpg content in F3 than in F4, and that amount of additional content is decent enough to outclass the successor as an rpg.

Second thing, F4 makes no effort in having even a semblance of branched dialogues, the options are only 4, usually confusing and mostly redundant. Speaking of the gameplay, it is focused more on doing an action game rather than an action-rpg game.

 

The question is not defining what is rpg and what is not, but how many elements of it there are and how much they are good. F3 has still a lot more of them than F4 and they're solid enough to consider F3 an action-rpg game and F4 an action game with few and poor rpg elements. Surely not an action-rpg, or a decent rpg.

 

If you need more insights you should ask people what they like about F3 and what they're liking about F4, you could have some interesting responses.

 

The original point I was making is that one is not objectively better than the other. Fallout 3 may objectively have more RPG elements in it but that doesn't translate into it being a "better" game.

 

It might be better to you personally if you place that much value on the amount of RPG elements in the game, but that would be an opinion =P

[Seraphim24]

The original point I was making is that one is not objectively better than the other. Fallout 3 may objectively have more RPG elements in it but that doesn't translate into it being a "better" game.

 

It might be better to you personally if you place that much value on the amount of RPG elements in the game, but that would be an opinion =P

 

Some games are objectively better than other games.

[Ahglock]

Suggestions that Bioware is getting "weaker" I at least understand. I disliked the combat in Inquisition as well. But what is it about Bethesda's recent games that makes you see the company as actually declining? For all the remaining flaws, I predominantly see improvement.

Sorry I was referring to weaker on pure RPG mechanics not overall as a game. And again for perspective my defining characteristic of a RPG is character skill resolution vs player skill.

So to hit rolls like found in morrowind is very RPG, oblivions resolving the damage by character stats and not the hit part is less RPG.

Sorry I'm typing on my phone so it's a pain to review my posts to make sure I'm being as clear as I can.

[AlanC9]

^ and yet I find Bethesda games to be both more hard core RPGs and to have better stories than Bioware. Define RPG and what makes a good story as I'm sure it will differ from my definition.

Probably need to define "hardcore" too.

I find bioware to have mechanics that rely more heavily on player skill than Bethesda games and resolution based on the characters not players skill is for me the defining characteristic of a RPG.

Hmm.... could you walk me through that? I thought that Skyrim was more skill-demanding than DA:I, since you can always switch to the tac cam if you're having trouble hitting stuff. Any DA game can be played without skill, unless you're talking about the skill of developing efficient combat tactics. Even ME games can be trivialized by pausing and aiming, if you can tolerate the tedium. Morrowind was more dependent on character skill, though, since you could come up with a lousy build in a way you just can't in Skyrim without really working at it.

[Ahglock]

^ dragon age turned into a tactical skill mini game of creating combos. DAI didn't require them as much but it still required a higher degree of skill for me than skyrim. Outside of dragons in flight nothing moved remotely fast enough to require any skill to hit so it was a pure stat to damage mechanic. Which is similar to dragonage but skyrim used it for a wide range of mechanics and not just combat. So for me it was a bit more than dragon age and a lot more than mass effect.

[Lady Artifice]

Sorry I was referring to weaker on pure RPG mechanics not overall as a game. And again for perspective my defining characteristic of a RPG is character skill resolution vs player skill.

So to hit rolls like found in morrowind is very RPG, oblivions resolving the damage by character stats and not the hit part is less RPG.

Sorry I'm typing on my phone so it's a pain to review my posts to make sure I'm being as clear as I can.

 

Ok, I think I understand.

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I rate the games I play as games instead of genre-members. If a game has fewer strong RPG elements but the overall experience is better, I'm going to rate it better, period. I like RPGs but I don't consider their existing conventions to be some sort of gold standard.

By the way, seriously guys, stop feeding dlux.

 

I see where you're coming from, but context and intent can be important considerations if you're trying to assess quality (at least, quality of story). I think we get into murky territory if we judge a game that aspires to be an open world rpg with the exact same parameters that we judge one that aspires to be a linear puzzle platform game.

 

I also think there's too many variables and too many different priorities people can place of different aspects of a game to ever make this kind of debate find common ground, though.

[AlanC9]

^ dragon age turned into a tactical skill mini game of creating combos. DAI didn't require them as much but it still required a higher degree of skill for me than skyrim.

Because you couldn't fully automate the triggering process in DAI the way you could in DA2, right? OK, though the only skill required is being able to hit the pause button when the status effect happens. I still don't see how this is harder than hitting stuff in Skyrim.