I hate silent protagonists. They just seem awkward and out of place. Btw I still have my unpopular opinion that Mark Meer voice acting was fine and I liked it. I jest like hearing voice of main character.
Say what you will about Meer, he had the best line read in the game. It's like the animation was specifically timed for his reaction.
I'd feel pretty good about myself if I did that.
Though I also don't really like the idea of boss fights. As much as I thought ME2 made some strange design choices, the boss at the end really drove home that it wasn't my kind of game. As soon as a game is more like God of War than it is like Baldur's Gate, I don't want to play it.
I wouldn't feel better or worse because the sniper rifle did most of the work. I simply was an accurate shot, given that I play in real time and landed a headshot most likely.
I do like the idea of boss fights with interesting mechanics though, so for me it makes the game better.
If you can do everything in the rules, the ruleset isn't very robust.
I would expect one character, even at max level, to be able to do maybe 25% of everything, and I don’t think the PC should be anywhere max level, even at the end of the game. The rules should go higher than the game does.
When I say I would rather enemies be interesting than just mimic everything I can do, I mean i'd rather them have unique and interesting mechanics that may not be available to the player regardless of their setup.
Not every mechanic that works well on a AI unit would work well on a player, and not every player mechanic would work well on the AI.
I haven't been on the forums for a long while.
... I read the OP and cringed.
I completely disagree. Having voiced protagonists has transformed RPG's. FemShep without Hale ... wouldn't be the same. And like Panda says above... I like the multiple vo actor choices (DA:I style... but better). So Hale and a few other's to choose from for other playthroughs... The best time ever!
Undoubtedly.Having voiced protagonists has transformed RPG's.
Undoubtedly.
And I think every one so far would have been improved by the ability to turn off the voice.
As an added bonus, the voice track gets replaced by old timey piano.
That would be distracting.As an added bonus, the voice track gets replaced by old timey piano.
It's news to me that Mark Meer's voicing of Shepard was unpopular. I thought he was awesome. I love hearing him speak on unrelated things because it gives me warm fuzzies of Mass Effect nostalgia. He's also quite talented with voices, IMO. He did the Volus voices with the breathing apparatus sound effects.
It's news to me that Mark Meer's voicing of Shepard was unpopular. I thought he was awesome. I love hearing him speak on unrelated things because it gives me warm fuzzies of Mass Effect nostalgia. He's also quite talented with voices, IMO. He did the Volus voices with the breathing apparatus sound effects.
Mark Meer is great. I think all of that is related to comparing who is best voice actor, Mark Meer or Jennifer Hale, which is stupid! The two are ****** awesome, both of them are Shepard.
He's an entertaining guy. I attended a panel on voice acting with him and some others at a Con. He made me wish I'd liked the character more.It's news to me that Mark Meer's voicing of Shepard was unpopular. I thought he was awesome. I love hearing him speak on unrelated things because it gives me warm fuzzies of Mass Effect nostalgia. He's also quite talented with voices, IMO. He did the Volus voices with the breathing apparatus sound effects.
That damned VO is the primary reason I've yet to purchase or play FO4. Learning that it was voiced threw a huge wet blanket on my initial excitement for the game's impending release.
It is true that it can be modded out (and as I understand it, that was the very first mod available), but it still doesn't change the fact that the dialogue was written for a voiced PC, which creates a lot of limitations.
As Sylvius notes, the dialogue isn't terrible (or any worse than other Beth offerings), although the mod to eliminate the paraphrasing is practically mandatory. What really harms the game is the specificity of the scenario.
After clearing the campaign, the game really opens up. It's mostly excellent, but the strongly predefined vault dweller is just awful.
ETA: spoiler brackets just to be safe. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
FO4 doesn't have the kind of back and forth exchanges that have marked BioWare's voiced PC games. Combined with the full text dialogue options (which I think was actually an available mod before the no voice mod), FO4's dialogue is typical of a Bethesda game.
The big problem is that the writers have aasumed that you care about the story they've written. They've even gated necessarily tutorials (like crafting) behind plot advancement.
As Sylvius notes, the dialogue isn't terrible (or any worse than other Beth offerings), although the mod to eliminate the paraphrasing is practically mandatory. What really harms the game is the specificity of the scenario.
SpoilerAnd it's so deeply entrenched that any alternate start mods are gonna be hindered from the word go.
After clearing the campaign, the game really opens up. It's mostly excellent, but the strongly predefined vault dweller is just awful.
ETA: spoiler brackets just to be safe. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
If they don't have more HP then my response will be "Wait... was that thing I just 1 shot with my Sniper Rifle supposed to be a boss?".
Well documented things is nice, but I would rather enemies be interesting rather than just mimic everything I can do.
Well depends, if the enemy is a naked human - yes it would make sense for him to die with one shot. (he probably won't be much of a boss...)
But if the enemy is some kind of mutated monster, heavily modified human, or just someone wearing especially made very powerful armor and shields - 5K HP would make sense.
I would expect one character, even at max level, to be able to do maybe 25% of everything, and I don’t think the PC should be anywhere max level, even at the end of the game. The rules should go higher than the game does.
There is also more than one development tree, enemies might have access to different techniques, spells, or technology that are realistically out of reach of the PC, in the same vein, the protagonist might have access to unique traits, magic or technology due to unique circumstances. (similar to DA:I's anchor)
But yes, none of this excuses the laughable and poor design of enemies in DA:I, especially enemy mages.
Yeah, that was the other huge reason why I've not been eager to purchase it.
Spoiler
On the other hand, most of the baby stuff seems limited to the main campaign. So now that it's over, I can pretty much be "Nate/Shaun who?" and run around the Commonwealth with Piper. Which will probably be my approach to an "alternate start" for new games - just starting with a post-game save and my imagination.
It really is a good game, otherwise. I'm concerned for TESVI though, too, because I suspect the majority of players don't have a problem with FO4's approach (and truth be told, I don't necessarily either - I love Shepard and Hawke. Just not in this sort of setting, in this sort of game). But my concern is alleviated somewhat by the conviction that "nameless prisoner" is such an established thing in TES that I don't think they'll mess with it. Hope springs eternal.
Well depends, if the enemy is a naked human - yes it would make sense for him to die with one shot. (he probably won't be much of a boss...)
But if the enemy is some kind of mutated monster, heavily modified human, or just someone wearing especially made very powerful armor and shields - 5K HP would make sense.
Even a regular Human boss I expect to not die to a single headshot. That doesn't mean I want a bullet sponge either, but it shouldn't go down in 1 hit however you want to explain that. In Mass Effect, specially made armour with advanced shields sounds like a good way to do that.
What I mostly want is for the fight to be interesting. If the boss dies in 1 hit or if it behaves like the trash mob I fought up until that point except with higher stats, then I'll not find it a terribly interesting boss fight.
Sometimes making an interesting boss fight means having a mechanic that the player can't access through any gameplay choice, which by definition is no longer symmetrical gameplay. I'm okay with that though, because it means more interesting boss fights.
Eww...
I just took a quick look at some comments on metacritic, and a lot of people seem to think they've ripped out a lot of the RPG elements and made it more of an action shooter. Also, there is a lot of criticism about them having voiced the PC.
A dear friend of mine who is a major fan of both FO and TES and plays both series repeatedly picked up FO4 on release day. She hasn't said a lot about it - she rarely praises or criticizes anything - but she did tell me she felt she was about done with it during her first playthrough.
I can only hope Bethesda will return to form going forward.
ETA:
Yeah, that was the other huge reason why I've not been eager to purchase it.
Spoiler
To be honest after Skyrim, I'm not surprised that they pushed to remove skills and other things generally associated with "RPG elements" from Fallout as well.
Under normal circumstances I'd be annoyed by that, but Bethesda has the horrible habit of allowing a perfect character these days anwyay. In Fallout 3, even without Broken Steel DLC that increases the level cap, it was possible to max out every skill. It's no longer a character building choice at that point when you can choose everything all at once.
Bethesda's biggest problem with the storyline is they're trying to be BioWare, but they aren't good at being BioWare. They're good at creating a world with lots of interesting lore to set us loose in to go explore and have fun in a sandbox while we RP our characters and eventually mod the game to exactly the way we want to play it.
Skyrim, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 all did a better job of this because they allow you to completely ignore the main quest after the opening tutorial areas(which can be modded away with alternate start mods) and dialogue relating to it doesn't keep popping up unless you actually do those main quests. Fallout 4 so desperately wants you to do its main quest that it makes it difficult to avoid, especially given that features like settlements are tied directly to it.
If it weren't for mods, I would be going back to Skyrim despite liking the post apocalyptic sci-fi theme better than medieval fantasy. It's simply the better base game, imo.
To be honest after Skyrim, I'm not surprised that they pushed to remove skills and other things generally associated with "RPG elements" from Fallout as well.
Under normal circumstances I'd be annoyed by that, but Bethesda has the horrible habit of allowing a perfect character these days anwyay. In Fallout 3, even without Broken Steel DLC that increases the level cap, it was possible to max out every skill. It's no longer a character building choice at that point when you can choose everything all at once.
Bethesda's biggest problem with the storyline is they're trying to be BioWare, but they aren't good at being BioWare. They're good at creating a world with lots of interesting lore to set us loose in to go explore and have fun in a sandbox while we RP our characters and eventually mod the game to exactly the way we want to play it.
Skyrim, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 all did a better job of this because they allow you to completely ignore the main quest after the opening tutorial areas(which can be modded away with alternate start mods) and dialogue relating to it doesn't keep popping up unless you actually do those main quests. Fallout 4 so desperately wants you to do its main quest that it makes it difficult to avoid, especially given that features like settlements are tied directly to it.
If it weren't for mods, I would be going back to Skyrim despite liking the post apocalyptic sci-fi theme better than medieval fantasy. It's simply the better base game, imo.
I'm gonna be playing Skyrim forever, I think.
It might just be bias due to the way I play, but I don't think the ability to max everything in this type of game is that bad at all. We as the player just need to exercise a bit of moderation. Create a character concept and stick to it. Resist the urge to conjure up fireballs or summon demons on our thief.
I'm gonna be playing Skyrim forever, I think.
It might just be bias due to the way I play, but I don't think the ability to max everything in this type of game is that bad at all. We as the player just need to exercise a bit of moderation. Create a character concept and stick to it. Resist the urge to conjure up fireballs or summon demons on our thief.
The problem is not not using specific skills, that's an artificial restriction anyway. The problem is the lack of reactivity even for the most major things in the game. No matter what you achieved, no matter if you are the archmage and defeated the big bad, no one knows you.
Personally, I just consider Bethesda games as big sandboxes of potential fun, not really to be taken seriously.
I'm gonna be playing Skyrim forever, I think.
It might just be bias due to the way I play, but I don't think the ability to max everything in this type of game is that bad at all. We as the player just need to exercise a bit of moderation. Create a character concept and stick to it. Resist the urge to conjure up fireballs or summon demons on our thief.
Well when I can already do everything, I'm mostly just not bothered by Bethesda removing the need for me to spam click skill increases once in a while and just letting me do everything anyway.
That's why I'm not as bothered by the "removal of RPG elements" in Fallout 4 as other people. A lot of them were already rendered pretty irrelevant to me in Fallout 3, so I'm used to it by now.
It was more of an issue in Fallout 3 than Skyrim admittedly. Since in Fallout 3 when you level up you have to spend your skill points, and you can't make a skill go higher than 100 at some point higher INT characters will be forced to just max everything out. Especially if you're playing Broken Steel which gives you 10 extra levels, but it is possible without the DLC unless you're intentionally avoiding skill magazines.
Skyrim was designed that while you can unlock everything, it takes a stupidly long time because you'll severely slow down in leveling at some point. I'm not sure if the prestige skills system makes you level faster(i assume it does since a level 1 skill is easier to get skill ups in), but it's a clear cut choice to use that. I'm never forced to reset a skill's level.
I can easily ignore the fact that my assassin started with a token fire spell. Being that I was a dark elf, it even made some sense that I knew a little bit of destruction magic despite almost never using it.
The problem is not not using specific skills, that's an artificial restriction anyway. The problem is the lack of reactivity even for the most major things in the game. No matter what you achieved, no matter if you are the archmage and defeated the big bad, no one knows you.
Personally, I just consider Bethesda games as big sandboxes of potential fun, not really to be taken seriously.
That's fair. I guess I regard those overall as strengths in this case, where they'd possibly be shortcomings in other games. Skyrim (like all the other TES games) is 80% headcanon for me, personally. The gameplay (polished and iterated upon with mods, of course) is good enough that I can create and play a huge variety of different sorts of characters, many of which don't necessarily go on to complete the main storyline (or any of the guilds for that matter) - just live in the setting and perform a role in accordance with the character concept. The scope of the game can't be infinite, so while may not explicitly support or acknowledge everything, I think that's secondary to the fact that it doesn't contradict anything. Modding support is crucial, obviously.
And I'm also biased. TES is probably my favorite RPG setting, and has been since I bought Daggerfall on release. I've spent a lot of time and energy in there.
…
I want one set of rules for every creature in the game world (like a tabletop RPG), and I want thise rules to be fully documented so the players can read them before they play (like a tabletop RPG).
I'd buy the books.
To be honest after Skyrim, I'm not surprised that they pushed to remove skills and other things generally associated with "RPG elements" from Fallout as well.
Under normal circumstances I'd be annoyed by that, but Bethesda has the horrible habit of allowing a perfect character these days anwyay. In Fallout 3, even without Broken Steel DLC that increases the level cap, it was possible to max out every skill. It's no longer a character building choice at that point when you can choose everything all at once.
Bethesda's biggest problem with the storyline is they're trying to be BioWare, but they aren't good at being BioWare.
The character I'm currently playing is an expert Huntress (Archery) and craftsman, but pretty much sucks at magic and hasn't done much with shouts. I'm thinking about doing a Stormcloakin' Nord, all melee, who can't craft her way out of a paper bag. I'm also considering a pure mage run. The game mechanics allow me to do any of those, and more.
Incidentally, if you haven’t tried it, Skyrim Unbound is fantastic for this. I was previously using Alternate Start - Live Another Life (which is still terrific, especially for Dragonborn characters) and a woefully outdated AS mod that disables the main questline. Skyrim Unbound starts the game off with a MCM menu that lets you determine whether you’re the DB , disable word walls and the dragon attacks/main quest, determine starting gear kit, spells and location, etc. Also start as a werewolf or vampire or soldier for the empire/stormcloaks in a slightly sleeker way than ASLAL handles it. I highly recommend a look.
How so?
Because Skyrim already started the removal of things like stats from previous Elder Scrolls games. Removal of RPG elements is something I remember people talking about with Skyrim and due to the insane popularity of it, it's not surprising they continued that trend.
Actually, I still see hardcore Morrowind fans noting this trend as far back as Oblivion. I joined the series in Oblivion, so I didn't really notice it as much.
Well, yeah - but some people really want to max out everything. They'll use mods, console commands, and exploits to do exactly that. Is that such a bad thing?
The character I'm currently playing is an expert Huntress (Archery) and craftsman, but pretty much sucks at magic and hasn't done much with shouts. I'm thinking about doing a Stormcloakin' Nord, all melee, who can't craft her way out of a paper bag. I'm also considering a pure mage run. The game mechanics allow me to do any of those, and more.
I don't think it's inherently a bad thing to let players max everything out but when you can, I feel as though there isn't a choice in building the character because the character can now do everything at a master level. Keep in mind when I say you can get every skill to 100 in Fallout 3 that's without mods, console commands, or exploits. Simply leveling a high INT character will result in that happening.
My main point was that I don't see the apparent "removal of RPG elements" like skills as a big issue since skills in Fallout 3 were already basically irrelevant.
Admittedly Skyrim doesn't suffer this nearly as badly. Also because of the fact that a skill wont level up if you don't use it, unlike in Fallout 3 where I can have 100 explosives without ever actually using one.
What BioWare has come to represent to me of late is a highly cinematic linear authored narrative with loads of cut-scenes. It's a different form of entertainment than what I look for in an RPG.
The sort of marriage I'd like to see would include Bethesda's open world, crafting, and role-playing freedom with BioWare characters, companions, and relationship building. I don't like BioWare for their cinematic storytelling, but for their world-building and characters.
Fallout 4 felt more like they wanted to get away from their usual thing and have this big epic storyline, which is why I said they're trying to be BioWare. It doesn't help that the game desperately wants you to do the main storyline either, which makes it hard to do the usual "ignore it and go do my own thing" that I usually do in a Bethesda game.
If the two came together it would be amazing to see Bethesda's open world, crafting, and RP freedom mixed with BioWare's characters and companions. Although until then, I think Bethesda should stick to working on the things they do best =P
The way it's implemented in the early hame also just makes the protagonist sound dumb.What really harms the game is the specificity of the scenario.
SpoilerAnd it's so deeply entrenched that any alternate start mods are gonna be hindered from the word go.
I don't see much limitation there. Bethesda's dialogue has always been pretty vague.Don't you think the options are more limited because it was written to be voiced?
My biggest concern was that they broke VATS, but luckily that's also been fixed with mods. Now VATS can be a full pause again, with no limit on range.I just took a quick look at some comments on metacritic, and a lot of people seem to think they've ripped out a lot of the RPG elements and made it more of an action shooter.
Throw in BioWare's pausable tactical combat and Bethesda's mod-friendliness and I'll play that game forever.Fallout 4 felt more like they wanted to get away from their usual thing and have this big epic storyline, which is why I said they're trying to be BioWare. It doesn't help that the game desperately wants you to do the main storyline either, which makes it hard to do the usual "ignore it and go do my own thing" that I usually do in a Bethesda game.
If the two came together it would be amazing to see Bethesda's open world, crafting, and RP freedom mixed with BioWare's characters and companions. Although until then, I think Bethesda should stick to working on the things they do best =P
Retour en haut