Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Game Discussion => Player's Plaza => Topic started by: Vanguard on August 04, 2013, 10:33:41 PM
-
What are some games that consistently offer interesting choices and content?
Mage Guild and Spelunky are the kinds of games I'm talking about. Nearly every item is useful, and nearly every enemy is at least a potential threat. The dungeon tends to change quite a bit between levels.
Angband is a good counterexample. The game generates a ton of items you'll never use. Most enemies you encounter offer little to no threat. Most dungeon levels are indistinguishable from the previous level.
What do you think is necessary to make this kind of game? It seems to me that the recipe is a fast pace, a lot of variety, and restraint in the number objects your game generates. Every item and every enemy should fill some purpose.
-
It probably has to do with randomised generation of content. Spelunky's enemies are very limited (for each area). For the first one there's bats, spiders and humans. Items also are not randomised, and there's a handful of them that drastically alter gameplay. Thus, with such a limited, hand-crafted set of new items, you can really tailor how they are going to handle the player's experience.
By contrast, roguelikes have a ton of enemies that vary little (goblins, orcs and gnolls are really much the same in crawl, except for minor differences), and lots of weapons that also vary little. They don't fundamentally change gameplay, so naturally there's less options for them to become game changers. So roguelikes tend to have constant but limited progression. One more AC from the new Armour, a little bit more damage from a new weapon, scrolls that give you a little more attack or defence, and increase in a skill, etc.
I guess you could try randomising the effect of weapons and items in general, but randomisation would probably mean that you'd revert at least a little to the limited progression situation (some gloves that let you cling to wall for 1s, then gloves who let you cling to walls for 2s, etc). It would probably also generate items that are strictly worse than those you already have (which does not happen in Spelunky, since all items are simply different, and all of them useful), or items that are overpowered.
-
What do you think is necessary to make this kind of game? It seems to me that the recipe is a fast pace, a lot of variety, and restraint in the number objects your game generates. Every item and every enemy should fill some purpose.
I think it requires a LONG and steady level of increasing difficulty completely based on the character's progress to make sure that every item is useful and that every creature opposes a challenge. Basically, it is having the world leveling up with you, regardless of the amount of items and creature variety.
-
This is precisely a recipe, analogous to the (in)famous la pièce bien faite of theater, where nothing that doesn't contribute to the main plot is allowed to exist in the play. This kind of thing can be fun, but it's not the only way to make a fun game, or avoid monotony.
For example, several of Jeff Lait's games, "Smart Kobolds", and "Vicious Orcs" come to mind, have a narrative and a message, and everything in the game is focused on the message, with little to no extraneous elements.
Similarly a game may focus on "the roguelike experience" and ruthlessly trim extraneous elements in order to provide just that experience.
These are a great example of this kind of game, but this isn't the only kind of game I want to play or write.
In the other extreme you have the sandbox, it's messy, there are no directions, there may not be a goal per se, but it's a fun environment to *play* in. Minecraft and DF are exemplars of this style of game, there's no narrative at all, but they can be massively enjoyable and present emergent situations you'd never encounter with a more tightly-controlled game.
Somewhere in the middle you have 'bands, many roguelikes, Fallout, GTA, and Elder Scrolls, where there is a backbone of story, plot, etc, but there are a multitude of paths you can follow along the way, scripted or emergent.
Regarding extraneous elements, rather than excising them from the game entirely, it may be sufficient to enable the player to manage them effectively, ranging from simply greying out items that the player can't use, to incorporating mechanics that render all items potentially useful (such as Dungeonmans' museum, or Crawl's sacrifice mechanic). Similarly with enemies that aren't a challenge, a mechanic that allows the player to eliminate or ignore them may be sufficient. Perhaps enemies that you massively outclass simply run from you in terror and fade into the background.
-
I guess you could try randomising the effect of weapons and items in general, but randomisation would probably mean that you'd revert at least a little to the limited progression situation (some gloves that let you cling to wall for 1s, then gloves who let you cling to walls for 2s, etc). It would probably also generate items that are strictly worse than those you already have (which does not happen in Spelunky, since all items are simply different, and all of them useful), or items that are overpowered.
Yeah, I think you're right. I'd still be interested in seeing some experimental games that combine randomization with Zelda/Spelunky-style items. Has that been done before?
This is precisely a recipe, analogous to the (in)famous la pièce bien faite of theater, where nothing that doesn't contribute to the main plot is allowed to exist in the play. This kind of thing can be fun, but it's not the only way to make a fun game, or avoid monotony.
That's certainly one way to do it, and I personally tend to prefer those sorts of games that focus on drawing as much depth as possible out of a small number of mechanics. But I don't think it's the only way.
After thinking about it for a while, I've decided that the kind of monotony I've been talking about is best described as a combination between obvious choices/content and meaningless choices/content.
An obvious choice would be finding a 15 - 25 damage weapon when your old one did 5 - 10 damage. There's a decision to be made, but one option is clearly better than the others and you don't need to think very hard to find it.
A meaningless decision would be deciding whether cast a single target 10 damage lightning spell for 5 mana or a single target 10 damage fire spell for 5 mana on a target with no resistance. You have a choice, but there's no real difference between any of your options.
I think these kinds of decisions should be removed as much as possible. I'd rather have a 10 hour long game with 10 hours of good content than a 100 hour long game with 10 hours of good content. I think finding a sword that does 100 damage when your old one did 20 is much more exciting than starting with a 20 damage sword and, over a period of time, time finding 16 swords, each with 5 more attack power than the last.
Somewhere in the middle you have 'bands, [...] and Elder Scrolls, where there is a backbone of story, plot, etc, but there are a multitude of paths you can follow along the way, scripted or emergent.
See, I feel that 'bands and the Elder Scrolls series are extreme examples of games with a lot of monotonous waste. The huge majority of areas, items, and enemies you encounter have absolutely nothing that makes them stand out.
They have their good points as well, but I really think that a clever designer could find a way to combine their natural strengths with more meaningful variety and fewer obvious choices.
-
See, I feel that 'bands and the Elder Scrolls series are extreme examples of games with a lot of monotonous waste. The huge majority of areas, items, and enemies you encounter have absolutely nothing that makes them stand out.
What the Elder Scrolls tries to achieve is giving the player a fine sense of exploration, which can only work within a big-free-roaming sandbox. Does this means it can have lots of monotonous waste? Well, it really depends on how you see it. If you seek to be specially reward each time you explore a site, it won't happen, meaning that it might feel extremely monotonous. On the other hand, if you enjoy exploring and collecting profitable items and resources to create news items, then you won't pay attention about feeling particularly rewarded about every site you explore. Personally, every time I go about exploring in Skyrim, I know I will return with my inventory completely full of items making it feel very rewarding, mainly because it will help my char develop by adding coin for training, buying other resources, a house or even allowing me to enchant more equipment.
They have their good points as well, but I really think that a clever designer could find a way to combine their natural strengths with more meaningful variety and fewer obvious choices.
I'm really not picking on you, it is just that this phrase of yours feels very unfair. It feels like you know the right formula or the right way to build a game's perfect design and that everyone who doesn't apply such formula isn't implementing a clever design. It is the same that having me saying: "I really think that a clever design would be creating a huge world with lots of places to explore and with lots of profitable possibilities and resources, period." ???
Games have a purpose and are developed having such purpose in mind. Some focus on exploration, others in survival, others in hack & slash, others in story line and others being linear and rewarding adventures. Skyrim is about exploring, which means it needs to be big and with loads of places to explore. If you were to castrate those features the game would cease to be about exploring. I think you are mixing your personal preferences while viewing all RPG to a particular type of game play.
If I were to give you my opinion about CRAWL's game play, I wouldn't have one single positive thing to say about it, which doesn't mean the game is not cleverly implemented. CRAWL was meant to be a straight forward hack&slash game and I believe it does his job pretty well, if you are into hack&slash. ;)
-
I'm really not picking on you, it is just that this phrase of yours feels very unfair. It feels like you know the right formula or the right way to build a game's perfect design and that everyone who doesn't apply such formula isn't implementing a clever design.
The Elder Scrolls games are full of deeply flawed and sometimes outright incompetent design decisions. It is possible to make a game that removes at least some of their flaws without losing their strong points - just replace those boneheaded decisions with more sensible ones.
-
The Elder Scrolls games are full of deeply flawed and sometimes outright incompetent design decisions. It is possible to make a game that removes at least some of their flaws without losing their strong points - just replace those boneheaded decisions with more sensible ones.
Well, it has its problems yes but I don't think Skyrim is deeply flawed, though I would think of Morrowind to have serious balancing issues. Deeply flawed games don't score a 9 out of 10. There are many games I don't like and that scored above 9. How can you explain this? The answer is on my previous post about CRAWL. No need for me to repeat myself.
-
Well, it has its problems yes but I don't think Skyrim is deeply flawed, though I would think of Morrowind to have serious balancing issues. Deeply flawed games don't score a 9 out of 10. There are many games I don't like and that scored above 9. How can you explain this? The answer is on my previous post about CRAWL. No need for me to repeat myself.
The explanation is simple: your premise is wrong. Deeply flawed games do score 9 out of 10.
Skyrim is a game about exploration where the huge majority of the places you can explore are very generic and samey. It's a game about freedom and choices where very few quests have multiple solutions, and the game puts completely unnecessary limitations on what you can choose to do (immortal NPCs are an obvious example). It's a game where nearly all of your problems are resolved through combat, and nearly all skills and items exist to improve your combat ability, but Skyrim's combat mechanics are not good, and it has very little enemy variety.
Skyrim's balance is poor. There are not many meaningful ways to interact with the world. It has few if any memorable NPCs. The whole game is just all around shallow.
Those are serious flaws. Some would be easy to fix, others would take a lot of effort.
-
Well, it has its problems yes but I don't think Skyrim is deeply flawed, though I would think of Morrowind to have serious balancing issues. Deeply flawed games don't score a 9 out of 10. There are many games I don't like and that scored above 9. How can you explain this? The answer is on my previous post about CRAWL. No need for me to repeat myself.
The explanation is simple: your premise is wrong. Deeply flawed games do score 9 out of 10.
Skyrim is a game about exploration where the huge majority of the places you can explore are very generic and samey. It's a game about freedom and choices where very few quests have multiple solutions, and the game puts completely unnecessary limitations on what you can choose to do (immortal NPCs are an obvious example). It's a game where nearly all of your problems are resolved through combat, and nearly all skills and items exist to improve your combat ability, but Skyrim's combat mechanics are not good, and it has very little enemy variety.
Skyrim's balance is poor. There are not many meaningful ways to interact with the world. It has few if any memorable NPCs. The whole game is just all around shallow.
Those are serious flaws. Some would be easy to fix, others would take a lot of effort.
I guess those serious flaws you mention turned out be very entertaining as I really enjoy it (among other hundreds of thousands people). I really hope my game can become as flawed as Skyrim, scoring a flawed 9 and profiting more $600 mil. Yeah, I can definitely live with that.
-
Surely as a roguelike fan you can understand the difference between popularity and quality.
-
Surely as a roguelike fan...
I do love open-space games having exploration as their main focus while containing strong RPG elements, despising if they are roguelikes or not. My contact with roguelike games happens by having a handful of roguelike games containing these features I'm really fond of. I'm definitely not a roguelike fan. All those roguelike games with deep roots around the original Rogue concept like Crawl or Brogue, feel extremely boring and repetitive as far game play goes. But it is not my place to say they lack quality or that suffer from major flaws as I fully understand their concept and game play goal. What happens is that I'm simply not fond of their concept. This is the basically the difference between the two of us. The difference is that don't imply that the games I don't like to be flawed or not having the "clever" design, where you think they all have a dumb design with tons of flaws.
...you can understand the difference between popularity and quality.
Not only I can tell the difference between those two words but also unerstanding that quality itself can be as relative as time and space. Rogue, the game that gave birth to the roguelike genre, it itself got popular for its apparent quality. This means that popularity can be achieved by doing something good or bad, and not exactly having popularity meaning "low quality" as you seem to imply. Proof of this is that I find Skyrim to be the most enjoyable game from the last 2 years (along with Mount&blade) even after your mediocre review about it.
-
The difference is that don't imply that the games I don't like to be flawed or not having the "clever" design, where you think they all have a dumb design with tons of flaws.
But I didn't do that. Everything I said about Skyrim is undeniably true. Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time, but it has a lot of the same problems as Skyrim does.
-
But I didn't do that. Everything I said about Skyrim is undeniably true. (...)
I won't repeat myself. Unless you really want me to.
(...)Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time, but it has a lot of the same problems as Skyrim does.
That's something everyone that played both games can disagree with, hands down. Skyrim has improved The Elder's Scroll's franchise in several ways, mainly at balancing game play. Morrowind suffered from a horrendous combat system as well as of an incredible unbalancing game play, even the Devs acknowdleged this when they were developing Oblivion, which made then implement a (unfortunately) not good solution either for Oblivion game play wise, where the world would level up with the player.
In Morrowind you would become invincible at lvl 20 rendering the game pretty much useless afterwards; I was in fact defeating Golden Saints (as you may know the game's most deadly opponent) at lvl 17 and you could find equipment too powerful at early stages of game play, like me finding a freezing dagger at lvl 1 and becoming a God immediately afterwards. When I complain myself of finding this dagger at the forums, people blame me for exploring too much LOL! Yeah, this is how retarded fanboys can be.
The only feature that kept me playing Morrowind was the exploration of the big Island, as the combat system, quests and loot were either too boring or not impressive, something I didn't find in Skyrim or even in Oblivion. So, in sum, I can't really agree with you, about this comparison of yours of Skyrim vs Morrowind.
-
I think there's no point in taking criticism against Elder Scrolls games personally. It's Bethesda's problem. No-one is saying that liking them makes anyone an inferior person in any way (well, at least no-one is saying that here). The Elder Scrolls games are probably the best at giving you big and pretty fantasy sandboxes to explore, which is a splendid reason to like them very much. However, they also are (sadly!) deeply flawed in the "mechanics of the game" department and I can attest to the fact that it can be a turn off even if one likes the concept (and I do, I've played Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion, of which I've only been able to finish the last one and only due to 100% permanent invisibility gear to bypass all the fights). Now, maybe Skyrim isn't deeply flawed as the previous entries, but after 3 games that managed to derail the awesome setting exploration with their incompetently designed mechanics I couldn't put down the money on such an unfavourably stacked gamble to see for myself.
To sum up, a game can be great even when flawed, but wouldn't it be so much better if it was flawless?
-
I think there's no point in taking criticism against Elder Scrolls games personally. It's Bethesda's problem. No-one is saying that liking them makes anyone an inferior person in any way (well, at least no-one is saying that here). The Elder Scrolls games are probably the best at giving you big and pretty fantasy sandboxes to explore, which is a splendid reason to like them very much. However, they also are (sadly!) deeply flawed in the "mechanics of the game" department and I can attest to the fact that it can be a turn off even if one likes the concept (and I do, I've played Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion, of which I've only been able to finish the last one and only due to 100% permanent invisibility gear to bypass all the fights).
To sum up, a game can be great even when flawed, but wouldn't it be so much better if it was flawless?
What you seek is a utopia. It is impossible to have a game without flaws due to personal preferences. There will be always someone hating the best movie, music, book or game ever created. Having a game satisfying someone in a particular way, means it won't be able to satisfy other persons in other ways as those persons will view those unsatisfactory experiences as a flaw.
I've met persons that don't enjoy turn-based games stating that such feature feels very boring, these persons consider turn-based a flaw, so no matter how good and perfect a turn-based game can be, it will be always be viewed as a flawed piece of software from all those sharing the suchview.
Now, maybe Skyrim isn't deeply flawed as the previous entries, but after 3 games that managed to derail the awesome setting exploration with their incompetently designed mechanics I couldn't put down the money on such an unfavourably stacked gamble to see for myself.
Then I can firmly say that you don't appreciate The Elder's Scroll concept as you seem to imply, at least not as I and many others appreciate it, having into consideration that Skyrim is the most balanced of the series. So we have people liking it and people disliking it. But one thing is for sure, Skyrim is the most successfully and enjoyable of all the Elder's Scroll's series, sales do confirm this, regardless of my or your opinion. A game doesn't turn itself into a good seller out of luck or curiosity because nowadays, players read reviews, play demos and watch tons in-game footage videos to understand if certain game is worthy of their time and money, before getting the real thing that is.
-
- Double post.
-
Then I can firmly say that you don't appreciate The Elder's Scroll concept as you seem to imply, at least not as I and many others appreciate having into consideration that Skyrim is the most balanced of the series.
You're damning Skyrim with faint praise. Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion are three of the most unbalanced games ever made. Skyrim's still enormously unbalanced. Crafting skills are crazy overpowered. Armor skills are pointless when you have smithing. Destruction magic's damage becomes a joke after a few levels. And so forth.
Balance barely matters in TES for the first place. It's more important to have an interesting setting to explore and cool treasures to collect and good storytelling. In those ways, Morrowind crushes its successors.
-
What you seek is a utopia. It is impossible to have a game without flaws due to personal preferences. There will be always someone hating the best movie, music, book or game ever created. Having a game satisfying someone in a particular way, means it won't be able to satisfy other persons in other ways as those persons will view those unsatisfactory experiences as a flaw.
I've met persons that don't enjoy turn-based games stating that such feature feels very boring, these persons consider turn-based a flaw, so no matter how good and perfect a turn-based game can be, it will be always be viewed as a flawed piece of software from all those sharing the suchview.
Of course, universally measured flawlessness is unreachable, but a game can be a flawless implementation of the authors' intent and e.g. Oblivion (which I know best of TES for the aforementioned reasons) clearly isn't, because e.g. levelling up is often a trap.
Then I can firmly say that you don't appreciate The Elder's Scroll concept as you seem to imply, at least not as I and many others appreciate it, having into consideration that Skyrim is the most balanced of the series. So we have people liking it and people disliking it. But one thing is for sure, Skyrim is the most successfully and enjoyable of all the Elder's Scroll's series, sales do confirm this, regardless of my or your opinion. A game doesn't turn itself into a good seller out of luck or curiosity because nowadays, players read reviews, play demos and watch tons in-game footage videos to understand if certain game is worthy of their time and money, before getting the real thing that is.
Success and popularity is only somewhat correlated to a lack of deep flaws in game design. For a low-hanging fruit example, Oblivion was also acclaimed by fans and critics alike and sold well despite its broken mechanics (so reading reviews wasn't exactly helpful re: trying out Skyrim, and playing demos and watching videos is already a time investment).
However, Skyrim does some great stuff that draws in a lot people (who can overlook the flaws to enjoy the rest). I think it's similar to Dwarf Fortress in that regard, except for the fact that current DF version is explicitly not yet a realisation of its full potential.
-
You're damning Skyrim with faint praise. Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion are three of the most unbalanced games ever made. Skyrim's still enormously unbalanced.
So I guess you have played all games in the world in all platforms to formulate such statement. And I wonder why do I keep having a hard time believing in your arguments.
Crafting skills are crazy overpowered. Armor skills are pointless when you have smithing. Destruction magic's damage becomes a joke after a few levels. And so forth.
I really can't complain about a single aspect you have just described. But I'm glad to know that you played Skyrim that long to come with those conclusions.
Balance barely matters in TES for the first place. It's more important to have an interesting setting to explore and cool treasures to collect and good storytelling. In those ways, Morrowind crushes its successors.
TES does take balance into consideration, in fact, I think that's the most crucial think to focus on. Dev teams knows how important balance is in a game. Not only we have evidence of TES putting effort into it by noticing game play changes throughout the series but also through videos during the making of Oblivion and SKyrim where they specifically talk about balance in their series while mentioning their previous flaws and what players mostly disliked about them. Don't blame me, blame the facts.
-
*yawn*
Can anyone point me to a thread without monotony? ;)
As always
Minotauros
-
LMAO!
-
You win this round, Minotaur.
-
Success and popularity is only somewhat correlated to a lack of deep flaws in game design. For a low-hanging fruit example, Oblivion was also acclaimed by fans and critics alike and sold well despite its broken mechanics (so reading reviews wasn't exactly helpful re: trying out Skyrim, and playing demos and watching videos is already a time investment).
Everything is time investing yes. Generally, you need time to perform a good investment. Reviews had helped me in past to stay away from some games, specially reader's reviews. Oblivion didn't have any broken mechanics regarding its main balance feature, it was designed exactly to perform likewise. Something broken is something designed to achieve a purpose but that in practical terms it achieves something else, which was not the case with Oblivion. It just happens people (including myself) were not fond of having the world leveling up with the character.
You can always say that it is broken as it attempts to be something good but that in the end it happens to be something bad. This approach is correct but it is entirely based on your personal preferences, I do have friends that enjoyed vanilla Oblivion.
However, Skyrim does some great stuff that draws in a lot people (who can overlook the flaws to enjoy the rest).
Sorry but here you are being presumptuous as you are assuming that everyone that enjoys the game also acknowledges it to harbor some major flaws, that otherwise could not accepted if not for its gracious looks and other neat features. Basically you say this to reinforce your argument about the flaws you personally see in it. Not cool. :P
-
You win this round, Minotaur.
Absolutely.
-
Oblivion didn't have any broken mechanics regarding its main balance feature, it was designed exactly to perform likewise.
Oblivion's level scaling was not intended to make destruction magic harmless. It wasn't supposed to create situations where a barbarian with maxed strength, maxed blade skill, and the strongest sword in the game needs dozens of hits to bring down a lone goblin.
But that's exactly what it does, so it's a broken feature.
Sorry but here you are being presumptuous as you are assuming that everyone that enjoys the game also acknowledges it to harbor some major flaws, that otherwise could not accepted if not for its gracious looks and other neat features. Basically you say this to reinforce your argument about the flaws you personally see in it. Not cool. :P
The flaws are real. For any given Skyrim fan, there are only two possibilities - either they like the game in spite of its flaws, or they like the game and are unaware of its flaws. If you think otherwise and care enough to dispute this, you should do so by showing how Skyrim's design decisions are not actually problematic.
Why is it okay for a game about freedom and choices to rarely allow the player to decide between multiple solutions to their quests? Why is it okay for a game about killing things to have such shallow combat mechanics?
-
Oblivion's level scaling was not intended to make destruction magic harmless. It wasn't supposed to create situations where a barbarian with maxed strength, maxed blade skill, and the strongest sword in the game needs dozens of hits to bring down a lone goblin.
I'm discussing about the leveling system they implemented which only a handful of people liked it. That level system did exactly what you mention. The WHOLE world would get stronger as you kept leveling up. That is was NOT a problem with magic or roles but how the world kept unfairly growing stronger which in the end played EXACTLY as the Devs planed to, to overcome the problem found in Morrowind, where people complained about having Morrowind being too easy after reaching a certain level. This was yet again referenced in on of their Oblivion making videos, which later they heavily regretted. Go figure...
So in sum, the feature was FLAWLESSLY implemented and functioning without problems. The only problem with it was that most of us didn't enjoyed the concept as it was simply horrendous.
Sorry but here you are being presumptuous. The flaws are real. For any given Skyrim fan, there are only two possibilities - either they like the game in spite of its flaws, or they like the game and are unaware of its flaws.
I'm not the one saying that knows how everyone else that plays SKyrim should feel about it. I guess that is what makes some one presumptuous. You are like, If I think Skyrim has major problems than everyone else should think likewise. <- This is being presumptuous.
If you think otherwise and care enough to dispute this, you should do so by showing how Skyrim's design decisions are not actually problematic.
I promise that I will discuss those problems once I find them, but since I already ended the game a few times, I really doubt that the next time I will find anything problematic, though I can already say that the depth of view feels very short. They should have kept it deeper for those with more than 4GB of ram and yeah and it does crashes occasionally, maybe because of the shit load of mods it has installed for eye candy.
Why is it okay for a game about freedom and choices to rarely allow the player to decide between multiple solutions to their quests? Why is it okay for a game about killing things to have such shallow combat mechanics?
I'm pretty sure I can question EVERY GAME that exists in the world toward issues of game play relevance. Unfortunately games won't be able to include all that features that everyone would love to see implemented.
Why in Fallout 2, a game that you can play as an Evil character doesn't let me torture or rape an NPC?
Why in Gothic 2 the character can carry unlimited cargo?
Why Most roguelike games don't have realistic damage control?
How can in EVE Online a character train more than one skill if it is all based on time?
Why is Tic Tac toe game not 4 by 4 instead 3 by 3?
Why Dark Souls feels incredibly tedious for me?
Why is not fallout 3 turn-based?
Why is Crysis 2 in a city instead beautiful open space islands?
Why is didn't Disciples 3 remained with the same game play as Disciples 2?
Why can I pick the Apples that are present in Fable trees?
Why does WOW looks so cartoonish? Was really necessary?
Why in Silent Hunter 5 can the player visit all the sub's compartments detail a not having the explosions be reflected on water?
Why needed Mario do be a plumber when there were so many other cool professions?
I could be all day long and grow a beard...
-
Not a single one of those is a flaw. The Fallout 2 one in particular makes me really question your tastes.
Skyrim's combat, one of the most important features of the game, is really shallow. Dark Souls does it better. So does Dragon's Dogma and Mount & Blade and even Ocarina of Time which came out about 15 years ago.
This has nothing to do with how much you or I enjoy Skyrim or any of those other games. It's because those other games include nontrivial defensive mechanics and the ability to control your opponents through hitstun, and things like that. Instead it's a damage race.
I'm discussing about the leveling system they implemented which only a handful of people liked it. That level system did exactly what you mention. The WHOLE world would get stronger as you kept leveling up. That is was NOT a problem with magic or roles but how the world kept unfairly growing stronger which in the end played EXACTLY as the Devs planed to
You've missed the point. Destruction mages are underpowered in Oblivion because when you level up all the bad guys get more health but leveling does not increase your magic damage. It absolutely is a level scaling issue.
-
Not a single one of those is a flaw. The Fallout 2 one in particular makes me really question your tastes.
Care to further develop your analyses?
Skyrim's combat, one of the most important features of the game, is really shallow. Dark Souls does it better. So does Dragon's Dogma and Mount & Blade and even Ocarina of Time which came out about 15 years ago.
Skyrim's combat system is far from being brilliant but I think is does the job fairly well. A shallow combat system would be the one implemented in Morrowind (your all-time-favorite), along with its utterly unbalanced game play. Nothing wrong about having Morrowind as all-time-favorite, I just think it sounds contradictory having such unbalanced game considered your all-time-favorite when Skyrim has so many things improved upon it. You did say that Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion were the most unbalanced games ever made.
You've missed the point. Destruction mages are underpowered in Oblivion because when you level up all the bad guys get more health but leveling does not increase your magic damage. It absolutely is a level scaling issue.
Yeah, its all about the leveling scaling issue. As if I was repeating myself...
-
However, Skyrim does some great stuff that draws in a lot people (who can overlook the flaws to enjoy the rest).
Sorry but here you are being presumptuous as you are assuming that everyone that enjoys the game also acknowledges it to harbor some major flaws, that otherwise could not accepted if not for its gracious looks and other neat features. Basically you say this to reinforce your argument about the flaws you personally see in it. Not cool. :P
Well, my only presumption here is "TES4: Skyrim has major flaws", as I've not played it or learned enough about it to tell otherwise. I'm not saying anything about anyone's acknowledgement of the flaws. One can enjoy a game despite noticing its flaws (like I do in the case of, say, Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2) or being unaware of its flaws or even refusing to acknowledge its obvious flaws because they like its good features so much (though I don't recommend the last approach). It's my analysis of Elder Scrolls' popularity: their good features are so great that they eclipse the major flaws, making TES very successful. However, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't stand up to a rigorous game design examination from any angle, including the designer's intent (which I imagine wasn't actually "so, in Oblivion, when you level up, everything gets stronger by a bigger margin then you get! Let's teach those players that levelling up is bad play!").
-
Skyrim's combat system is far from being brilliant but I think is does the job fairly well. A shallow combat system would be the one implemented in Morrowind (your all-time-favorite), along with its utterly unbalanced game play. Nothing wrong about having Morrowind as all-time-favorite, I just think it sounds contradictory having such unbalanced game considered your all-time-favorite when Skyrim has so many things improved upon it. You did say that Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion were the most unbalanced games ever made.
Yes, I did say that. Because it's true - Morrowind is extremely unbalanced and its combat is bad. I can say things like that and still like Morrowind because I can look at it objectively and understand that for all of its virtues, Morrowind is an imperfect work.
Morrowind has one of the top 5 settings in any game ever made. It's possibly the best treasure hunting game in the world. Its item and leveling systems allow for a huge number of wildly different characters. Those are some of the reasons why I like Morrowind, and in those regards, it is far superior to its successors.
I'm totally willing to have this discussion, but only if you'll engage in it on a higher level than "Skyrim doesn't have faults because it sold a lot and I like it."
-
Well, my only presumption here is "TES4: Skyrim has major flaws", as I've not played it or learned enough about it to tell otherwise. I'm not saying anything about anyone's acknowledgement of the flaws. One can enjoy a game despite noticing its flaws (like I do in the case of, say, Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2) or being unaware of its flaws or even refusing to acknowledge its obvious flaws because they like its good features so much (though I don't recommend the last approach). It's my analysis of Elder Scrolls' popularity: their good features are so great that they eclipse the major flaws, making TES very successful. However, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't stand up to a rigorous game design examination from any angle, including the designer's intent (which I imagine wasn't actually "so, in Oblivion, when you level up, everything gets stronger by a bigger margin then you get! Let's teach those players that levelling up is bad play!").
Well, thanks for clearing it out then. I totally agree with your sayings in this post.
-
Yes, I did say that. Because it's true - Morrowind is extremely unbalanced and its combat is bad. I can say things like that and still like Morrowind because I can look at it objectively and understand that for all of its virtues, Morrowind is an imperfect work.
Then you must understand why people love Skyrim. There is no point having the: "Skyrim has bad mechanics and it is totally unbalanced as an argument" when you recognize that even such games can be so enjoyable. You just "confessed" that someone can enjoy an unbalanced game with crappy combat mechanics, then I really don't understand why can't you acknowledge the fact that Skyrim is a potentially good. All you keep doing is denying all the good things I say about it, even implying that its popularity doesn't add nothing to its value.
Why is this so hard for you to accept it? As I said in my early posts, Skyrim is about exploring and it does that pretty well, hence its success, despising if you personally like (or not) the way its exploration mechanics play.
I'm totally willing to have this discussion, but only if you'll engage in it on a higher level than "Skyrim doesn't have faults because it sold a lot and I like it."
Please, don't distort my point of view or my sayings. I simply said that a game that sells so well can't be that flawed as you seemed to imply. Go and re-read my previous posts. I never said at any time that Skyrim is perfect nor I would ever attempt to imply that Skyrim is awesome just because I like it. I do believe that if many persons like a game then there is a chance it is a good game by offering way more positive than negative experiences.
If we are going to have this discuss I need you to stay coherent throughout the whole part of it. Coherency is the key to maintain a viable discussion.
-
I will explain the rest in PMs, and I apologize to everyone for not doing so earlier.