The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Announced for November 2011 231
Bethesda took advantage of the Video Game Awards this weekend to announce the fifth installment of the Elder Scrolls series, titled Skyrim. The game is planned for November 2011, and a teaser trailer has been posted on the Elder Scrolls website. Details are sparse, though the game will apparently run on an "all-new" engine.
Please fix the pathing/animations this time. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the working is expected (Score:2)
Sometime in February 2012 after fans and Bethesda patch and finish the content!
I am actually pretty happy about this. I enjoyed morrowind and oblivion a lot and hope they can expand on the great stories just waiting to be told.
Re: (Score:3)
If the trend over the past 3 games continues, the new game will have 7 NPCs and the world will be a single village. One would think they could get that working out of the box. (Daggerfall had 750000 NPCs, 15000 towns, 184000 square miles - Oblivion had 16 square miles).
Re: (Score:2)
And then there was Arena, which I wouldn't even hazard a count on NPCs, towns, and square miles. Each game has gotten smaller since then, when the game spanned the entire continent.
Re:And the working is expected (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Daggerfall had about 8 NPCs, one of which was then copied and pasted 749992 times; about 15 towns, each of which (again) was copied and pasted 1000 times; and basically no land at all, because there was absolutely no reason to set foot outside a town except to fast-travel to the entrance of another dungeon (which would also be identical to all the others, but with the same corridors and rooms arranged in a slightly different order) to do a quest (which would be one of the same three basic quests, with the same goals and the same twists, and just a few details tweaked at random).
Having lots of "content" is meaningless if it's all the same handful of places you've been before, populated by the same people you've talked to before, repeated over and over again by a pseudo-random number generator and occasionally given a slightly different texture or a palette swap.
Oblivion was too small, I will agree. But Daggerfall was even smaller in terms of actual variety.
too compressed (Score:2)
I thought the size of the game world in oblivion was fine, it was just too compressed. All of Morrowind took place on one tiny island off the coast of said region. Oblivion threw away any sense of scale by putting five or so cities in all of the largest region in Tamriel and making it so that it could be crossed by walking in less than an hour real time. Artificially limiting the scale as they did in Morrowind would have helped me suspend my disbelief a bit. I would have taken invisible walls over comp
Re: (Score:2)
I think people forget this (Score:2)
They have a foggy recollection of games of old that had these MASSIVE universes and say "Why can't that be done?" forgetting that those massive universes were full of nothing. Like I remember the original Elite. I liked that game a lot, space shooties are good stuff and free form is a good way of doing it. And wow what an amazing game a MASSIVE universe, all on one floppy disk! They were so much better than today's programmers! Well no. What they did was have a procedurally generated world. That's cool and
Re: (Score:3)
They have a foggy recollection of games of old that had these MASSIVE universes and say "Why can't that be done?" forgetting that those massive universes were full of nothing.
This isn't completely true. One of the things I loved about Morrowind (and which annoyed me about Oblivion) was that there WAS stuff hidden all of the massive world. Yes, there were big expanses with pretty much nothing in them, except hidden in the middle, where you would never look, was a huge cave full of bandits worshipping dremo
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if Bethesda keeps its usual TES schedule, it will be released somewhere between christmas 2012 and summer 2014. Then another half a year for a massive fan-made patch fixing all the content bugs and an official patch fixing most of the engine bugs, and sometime around 2015 the game should be actually playable and fun.
(remember, NO TES game has been released on time, and some delays were years long)
I'm already psyched (Score:2)
With the money at their disposal Bethesda could have easily gotten another gravelly-voiced old dude for the voiceover, but they got Max von Sydow. Excellent opening move, Bethesda.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the value of having more than 14 voiceactors to do all the 900+ characters in the game, that they don't seem to quite get.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of their not using an overexposed actor like Christopher Lee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well Flash Gordon got Max von Sydow as well.
What spell did bethesda cast that gets people psyched about a game when there history is so full of crap? why the hell does anyone buy a bethesda game when it first comes out?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh is there a highly-anticipated Flash Gordon game coming out next year too? I didn't realize he managed to overexpose himself as much as Christopher Lee. The fact that he's done Flash Gordon and barely anything since adds to the impressiveness of the move of hiring him.
I played Oblivion on PC the day it came out and enjoyed it thoroughly; whatever problems it had at launch weren't so severe as to affect my enjoyment.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't follow the "breadcrumb-trail main quest leading you through sidequest hubs that suck you in" formula to any great degree in Morrowind, Oblivion, or even very well in Fallout 3, where tradition would have dictated it. Nor did they make you choose skills to focus on, except for the very early game, in any of those three--they're in love with the "you're the best around at everything by the end game" school of RPGs, which sort of made sense in Morrowind (spoiler?) but didn't really in Oblivion, an
Yay! (Score:2)
That and the Mass Effect 3 teaser gave me a happy today. :-)
Dragons? (Score:2)
Did I understand that right? there be Dragons in Skyrim? That would actually be awesome!
I guess I stil have a year to finish Oblivion Mainquest. I've been playing regularly for nearly 5 years now (with 2 characters), and I never actually finished that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, but it could easily just be the Akaviri invading again. And the "Dragonborn" is definitely the player.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping it's the latter and not the former. I'm kinda tired of dragons being the villains all the time, not to mention IIRC they were a civilized race in the TES lore.
Looks like it'll just be Fallout with swords! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, obviously it's just Knights of the Old Republic without lightsabers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm*
The original joke when Fallout 3 came out, everyone said it was just, "Oblivion with guns." Hence the above joke saying, "Fallout 3 with swords."
Looks like Im buying a new PC (Score:2)
I'll be saving up the cash for a new machine come 1week before 11.11.11
Re:Looks like Im buying a new PC (Score:5, Funny)
Knowing Bethesda and its schedule-keeping skill, if your machine arrives at 11.11.11, it will be obsolete and too old to run TESV when it finally comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... who would bother writing extras for PC? Just make it use the same shit as the console.
The history of PC games being dumbed down, simplified and generally to suck, because "the console could not handle that much" is long and painful. Sure Oblivion on PC didn't look much different either. Until you installed fan-made mods that unlocked the full potential.
No, at the day of the release I'm pretty sure the PC and 360 versions may be very similar. Wait half a year and visit a friend with a good PC and kno
The new engine is ID Tech 5, AKA the RAGE engine (Score:2)
Here's a link to some footage of RAGE which will use the same engine and the game to debut the technology:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/46674/E3-2010-Live-Hands-On-Rage-Overview-Demo/ [g4tv.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article says exactly nothing about using an updated GameBryo engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when they say, "new engine," you think they are really saying, "updated engine?"
I don't honestly blame you, Bethsoft has an awful track record on stability and technical excellence. But that quote could just as easily mean they are actually creating a new engine, ground up designed for sandbox play. According to the devs their entire studio has been working full time since the release of Fallout 3 (save the DLC crews) on TES:V.
I guess I'm just hopeful you're wrong...unless they manage to get things kinda
Re:The new engine is ID Tech 5, AKA the RAGE engin (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32009/All_New_Game_Engine_For_Next_Elder_Scrolls.php [gamasutra.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Gamebryo is dead [wordpress.com], that would be rather horrific for development...
Hopefully it is good (Score:2)
I've been a little worried about iD so of late. Their last engine, iD Tech 4, really failed to impress. Doom 3 was very cool looking on first glance but as you played it engine flaws became very apparent (low rez textures, hard, dark shadows, extremely slow on the hardware of the day, etc). Didn't hold up that well against Unreal Engine 2.5 and then of course not at all against UE3, as engine sales show.
Then we hear about Rage/iDTech 5. Wonderful, looks like nifty features and so on but thus far nothing in
In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings! How ARE you?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope they don't 'consolize' it (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of studios are going console crazy now, even ones that traditionally were strong PC supporters like Bioware (compare Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights to the upcoming Dragon Age II).p>
As a PC gamer it's a trend I'm very bummed about... more and more games with lots of glitz and less substance.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, depends on what you mean (Score:3)
There are some downsides to games designed with a console in mind as well, but not the ones most people seem to cry about. The only real downsides I find are games with poor controls, where it is clear a gamepad is the target not a mouse and keyboard, and games with low resolution textures, where it could and should look better if it made use of modern PC graphics. However games can and do solve that. There are plenty of games where the PC version looks better and has a good interface. Dragon Age is a good
Re: (Score:2)
Consoles are taking up a large portion of the market but the PC ist still going strong. See Blizzard. See GSC (makers of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series). Plus, a lot of console games are available for the PC as well and not neccessarily as bad ports. Fallout 3/New Vegas springs t
Re: (Score:2)
They know their games don't work on consoles so they don't even try to adapt Starcraft to gamepads. And they still make money.
You never heard of Starcraft 64 for the Nintendo 64? Or Diablo or Warcraft II for the PSone? Never play any of the many Diablo clones on the PS2? Tell me that Diablo 3 doesn't look like this game: http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/championsofnorrath/video/6089192/champions-of-norrath-video-review?nonRedirectElement=1 [gamespot.com]
Blizzard could release any of their games for consoles...they just simply don't do so these days.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, Diablo 3 does look similar to Champions of Norrath. Unsurprisingly, given that Champions is a Diablo 2 clone.
I do concede that Blizzard could more actively pursue consoles if they wanted. However, they still don't, so they apparently don't see a reason to do so. Which would be an even stronger argument for the PC remaining a viable platform than "Blizzard
Dear Santa: Better Animations? (Score:2)
Great, a whole year of pointless hype (Score:3)
So we got a year to listen to the dev's hype the game up, listen to fanboys hype the game up.
We'll get magazines, blogs, and whomever, hyping the game up.
We'll get pointless previews, stupid conversations, and of course, dumb ass predictions (like this).
Sort of like, we always do.
New game systems please! (Score:2)
Re:New game systems please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There was still some scaling even in Morrowind, but only in regards to which enemies would show up - the same type of daedra would have the same stats, but if you're higher level you'll get a tougher type of daedra in the same ruins.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with any of that. In Oblivion just do the arcane University quest line (quite easy at level 1), learn the Chameleon spell and then enchant your armour with 100% chameleon and nothing will ever touch you, ever, even if you walk up to them and twat them in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblivion was more fun than morrowind (Score:2)
True. It was also ridiculous that common bandits had daedric armor when you got to a high level. Though there were issues in Morrowind as well. In Morrowind it was advantageous to jump at all times to increase your skills even when just traveling somewhere. In both games you have to keep a careful accounting system outside the game to time your skills-ups in your minor and major skills so as to get maximum stat increases on level up. Morrowind also allowed you to be nearly invincible at level 1 through the use of potions. The systems were a mess in both Morrowind and Oblivion. I can't say how they were like before that, since I don't remember how it worked in Daggerfall.
I had more fun with oblivion than with morrowind, because in morrowind I had to go crazy keeping track of minor skills and improving enough of them so as to get good stat increases at the next level. Oblivion I played much more naturally, mostly ignoring immersion-breaking things like skill and stat scores, and managed to be reasonably successful (though I'm sure people who tweaked every last bit of power our of their characters would have kicked my ass in pvp, but then, this is a single player game, so who
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, I don't remember Morrowind having leveled enemies. IIRC, if you didn't level "perfectly" you might not be able to go to a certain area as soon as someone who did (or you might have to use more dirty tricks to pull it off) but you could always just gain a couple more levels and then do it; Oblivion was the opposite, in that failing to level perfectly meant you actually got worse with each level, relative to every enemy in the game.
I certainly don't recall ever finding that I couldn't level my way throu
Re: (Score:2)
What I think is awesome about these games is how they are what you make of them. Apparently, you decided to abuse the mechanics to gain any edge possible, and you blame the game for letting you.
No, I played it the way it made sense first, and then I found that the game was not fun at max level because nothing died in a reasonable time. Then I played to get any edge possible while still leveling, and yet the issue remained. So I concluded that leveling is the wrong thing to do because it makes the game not fun at max level. By the way you don't reach max level unless you play for a long time, so you probably never experienced this issue. Your experiences at lower levels are not relevant to problems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But... but.... but... (Score:2)
Elder Scrolls has always been a single-player series, and single-player is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD! Our lords and masters at EA have said so! [slashdot.org]
Co-op play this time? (Score:3)
Needs co-op so my girlfriend can play it along with me, or I'm not going to be allowed to play it.
Re: (Score:2)
can we see a few changes? (Score:2)
1. Fix the leveling problem
2. Come up with a decent goddamn story for a change. Hire writers if you have to!
Oblivion was one of the most amazing, gorgeous, astounding games I'd ever seen. I'm still blown away by it. But for chrissakes,the leveling was awful and the writing was shit. Can't we have a game that delivers on all counts?
Re:What kind of name is Skyrim? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, this is the same game series that thought "Elsweyr" was a good name for a province. You get used to it.
Re:What kind of name is Skyrim? (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, the whole lore sprouted from a homebrew RPG the original authors/developers played among themselves. And it was quite tongue-in-cheek in places.
What about the forest elves, who live in such a harmony with the forest, that they are strictly carnivorous, consider eating plants a blasphemy and even brew alcohol from insects?
Or "Ramminus Polus" for that matter (Score:3)
Will Naugtius Maximus be a major character in this one?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for posting that I lost my Tamriel map that came with Oblivion. Sucks that it's where the Nords live, I was hoping that it would be located in the Summerset Isles, I bet the high elves have some awesome cities. One thing I really have to berate Bethesda for is the lack of variety of the environment. The game would have been twice as good if they kept some environments like the Dwenmer ruins (steam-punk ftw) and the cool plant-like cities that the Telmora grew in Morrowind. If they combined the best
Re: (Score:2)
Just to pedant: The Telvanni were the ones who lived in and grew the mushroom-cities; Tel Mora being one of those cities.
Well, I say cities, but they were more like villages. There are far too few people in game worlds, generally.
Re: (Score:2)
So, hopefully it should be something kind of like Solstheim in Bloodmoon, only much bigger... (Or maybe the same size, if the trend of shrinking the world down continues)
Please can we have a game where the wolves behave semi-sensibly and don't all have rabies...
Re:Yay Bugs! (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our buggy overl*falls through floor*
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the glitches where you end up standing 10 ft in the air balance it out.
Re:Windows-only game? (Score:5, Informative)
And, unlike you, I will back this up with citations. The current survey (of gaming rigs running Steam) is:
That's a terrible percentage. Every version of Mac OS is being beaten by Vista alone in a landslide. There's honestly no need for them to release a Mac version. And, actually, Sony at least does allow keyboards/mice to be used in games. However, very few games are programmed to actually use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no Wine unfortunately does *NOT* register as Other, at least on the several systems I've used. I recently had to (prior to the latest steam survey) change the ID in Wine due to it bitching about w2k support ending. Other is likely mostly whatever people have hacked win2k to work(possibly some people with wine), and win2k8.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Steam was released on Mac last May. Nearly 5% of the user base in 7 months isn't too shabby, especially when you consider how few of the games on Steam are available for Mac. Steam was first released for Windows in 2002.
Not that this invalidates your points about performance.
Re:Windows-only game? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Windows-only game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, gamers don't use Macs. At all.
Don't use all-quantors, it makes it trivial to prove you wrong, because a single counter-example suffices.
I am a gamer, and there is no non-Mac computer in my home (anymore).
(although even the most pimped out Mac pales before a fully-loaded custom rig)
Which 0.0001% of gamers own. You, sir, are stuck in the 80s, when one needed a university degree to be a gamer because one pretty much had to build ones own machine and the global gaming market was a few million bucks. Today, "gamers" includes most of the population and I dare to say the top-50 or so games run perfectly well on a 5-year-old machine because they are called FarmVille and the like. Maybe WoW is on that list somewhere, but very likely it's the only game on that list requiring a 3D graphics card.
There's honestly no need for them to release a Mac version
True, most Mac users use BootCamp to run windows on their Mac for gaming purposes. For a "I want this" game, doing only a windows version will work. But, honestly, most games are in the "looks nice, maybe I'll take a look" category. If they are available for the Mac, I will buy them (I've bought quite a few indie games for the Mac, for example). If they are windows-only, chances are that I'd rather visit torrentz.com than Steam. And if it's not there, I'll probably forget about it. If you can't be arsed to make the game for my system, then I can't be arsed to get out my wallet.
Or, as someone else put it nicely - would you rather have 0.1% of the 90% market share, or 10% of the 5% market share?
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are stuck in the 80s, when one needed a university degree to be a gamer because one pretty much had to build ones own machine and the global gaming market was a few million bucks.
You can build a PC that trounces a Mac for between half and three quarters the price. Ill give Apple kudos for the Ipad, Ipods and the Macbook Air, maybe even the lower end Macbook pros, but as far as price/performance goes you cannot beat building your own or buying a laptop from HP/Asus or something. HP now has some awesome chassis that are aluminum or magnesium or half-metal and plastic. They feel very sturdy and light, and they have the same hardware for much cheaper than Apple products. I know HP has
Re:Windows-only game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that Steam for Mac was released this year, and is already up to nearly 5% (given that Steam for Windows has been around for much, much longer), even when the library of Mac-compatible games on there is still not growing as quickly as it really should [the majority of games on the service are still Windows only, the Mac library is small but growing] (although Valve are porting their own titles as quickly as they can), I think that your numbers actually say the opposite of what you are saying.
"Bleeding edge" performance doesn't matter to as many people as you think it does - while there is a lot to be done on OS X in terms of gaming performance (the GPU drivers were really the biggest hit, and those have come on considerably in recent months), an OS X system will run most modern games just fine if they meet the specs - at least comparably to a Windows box.
I don;t want to be tweaking my RAM timings to get an extra 2fps out of Crisis, I just want to kick back after working and play a game now and again, crucially without having to reboot my machine into Windows for the convenience factor.
Not all "Gamers" are using liquid-cooled, overclocked, fan-heater-sounding rigs to play games - I would wager that most gamers are not like this any more, since the hardware pretty much caught up to the software in most cases - by which I mean, the games look good enough and play well enough on high settings on pretty modest hardware (cost wise) these days. You don;t need to buy a $600 GPU or a custom 15 fan case any more.
Any Mac bought in the last couple of years is going to have pretty decent hardware from a gaming perspective - ok, not cutting edge, but then most turnkey PC setups are not cutting edge either. Last year's iMacs were shipping with Radeon 4670s and 4850s, and the current ones have 5670s and 5750s (standard on the 27" and better specced 21.5", 4670 on the base one). They're not going to win benchmarking tests by any stretch of the chalk, but they're not miles behind any more, and the drivers are much better.
I'll follow up with a stat of my own (although will be difficult to back up as it was from the most recent Keynote - 1 in 5 new PCs sold in the US is a Mac - that's a growing market. Your argument is that since Mac is only at 5% on Steam (despite only being available to Mac for about 6 months, and still in its infancy) that there's no need to target Mac gamers - the same could have been said for designing websites that do more than just target IE, back when it was 95% of the browser market. Who needs Firefox?
Mac users have been crying out for game developers to release things on their platform for years - they are a captive and willing audience. Blizzard has been making hay on it for some time, and so were Bungie before Microsoft bought them out and took over the franchise that was supposed to be Mac-exclusive (Halo) and made it their Xbox launch title. Given that the Mac OS X user base is growing year on year, and has been since it came out (and that the numbers just cannot be old users upgrading - the base is very definitely growing quite rapidly) it only makes sense to target the platform for games, especially since the primary difficulty (the PPC architecture being different from x86) is now gone, making porting easier.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a good gaming system - for people that will meticulously adjust timings on RAM to improve performance, a 20% performance cut to switch to Mac is just not logical.
People still do that? I thought everyone stopped doing that when two year old hardware was still powerful enough to play recent games at decent framerates.
Admittedly, I won't play the latest games right when they come out and I don't play framerate-dependent games competitively but my dedicated gaming rig uses the smallest quad-core Phenom I could find, four gigs of RAM and a Geforce 8800. And that's plenty for everything I can toss at it, right up to recent Fallouts.
Tweaking RAM timings and overclockin
Re: (Score:2)
I am a gamer and I don't really care about "rigs". I care about having a good time. Which, hopefully, is the point of playing video games in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
An alternative statistic: 31 percent of students in college or university use macs on campus [grouplogic.com]. Lets agree that this doesn't mean TOO much; I'm sure lots of those students have no interest in gaming, or have more powerful computers in addition to a low-po
Re: (Score:2)
Just under 5% and Mac has only been available on the store for a few months now, not all games are Mac supported and Macs only make up a fraction of the home PC userbase, I'd say that's a pretty high number, especially compared to the "other" which includes Wine users.
Re: (Score:2)
My two bits - the main issue with MacOS X graphics drivers isn't that they're bad, it is that aside from bugfixes they are updated only with OS upgrades and often a generation or two behind what the cards support. They also don't support graphics card upgrades on most machines, which further hinders their adoption. Of course, the driver issue can be worked around in the same way it is done on Windows, which is by including newer headers and calling the hardware directly, but Apple goes out of their way to
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a terrible percentage. only 10% of computer users as a whole use a Mac.
So, no it's not bad at all.
Of course, you numbers are meaningless in this contexts without the total numbers of steam users, the market percentage of platform owners, and games.
Mac run many steam games just fine. I know a lot of twitch gamers that use Macs.
So about 3.3 million people use steam. 4 or so percent are Macs. Considering most MAc owners aren't 'gamers' how can you conclude it's a terrible percentage?
And it's not a 20%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted to play with the inferior mouse+keyboard I would probably, I don't know, BUY A PC AND NOT A CONSOLE. I prefer a controller that was actually designed for games, thank you very much. I'm so sick of hearing PC snobs talk about the keyboard/mouse as if it's somehow the perfect controller. The fact is that they're just used to it (and used to playing games whose control scheme was designed for it). In every way, the modern game controller is superior (and it should be, as gaming is what it was DESIG
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keyboard+Mouse is not ergonomic. After a long day using a keyboard+mouse at work and having sore forearms, I refuse to touch a mouse+keyboard at home... yes they are more accurate, but I dont give a shit; I want something I can relax on my couch with.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, I thought archery was too powerful. I got through most of the game on the strength of multiplier-bonused damage from sneak attacks with my bow. IMO it's the easiest way to play the game, with magic-focus being a close second and melee combat lagging as a distant third, and a last resort for archers and mages for the rare occasions that they don't destroy their enemies at range.
Re: (Score:2)
Have to agree, the high level sneak multiplier was insane, it was like 6X as much damage. One shot kills FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I thought archery was too powerful. I got through most of the game on the strength of multiplier-bonused damage from sneak attacks with my bow. IMO it's the easiest way to play the game, with magic-focus being a close second and melee combat lagging as a distant third, and a last resort for archers and mages for the rare occasions that they don't destroy their enemies at range.
Triple-effect poisons on the arrows were also fun, if you have high alchemy skills and enjoy gathering herbs...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblivion actually made this worse by having NPCs discuss things the player had done; the overall effect was of a world where literally nothing happened apart from what the player did.
Then they went and did the exact same thing in Fallout 3, where the only news in the wasteland is whatever the player did recently.
No, it does not make me feel like the special Chosen Savior Of The World, Bethesda. It br
Re: (Score:2)
New Vegas did give you the option of hunger, thirst and fatigue though. Like a hardmode of sorts. It's not that much more difficult, but you're constantly aware that you need to balance the weight of your little armoury and lootpile with the weight and cost of purified water and healthy food, or spend extra caps for things like radaway. I like it. You also get to mod your weapons, adding silencers or using a different type of ammo (hollowpoint, armourpiercing, cheapo basic stuff... all made at a workbench,
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, are either joking or a crack-head (I'm willing to entertain "meth-head" as well). Content is the one thing Bethesda does RIGHT. Not only do they do it right, but they do it better than pretty much anyone else. If you can name a single game that has a larger world, with more varied content, than either Oblivion or Fallout 3, then you go right ahead. I guess maybe you could say Fallout: New Vegas, but that's cheating now isn't it? Bethesda spends tens of millions of $ and years of development for eac
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing - food and water play a more important role (assuming you play "hardcore"), although even then both mainly have the effect of improving your "health", though if they drop too far you start to suffer interesting side effects. It makes managing radiation poisoning a lot more interesting than Fallout 3, since you have to balance the need for food and water with the benefit of running low health and instead tracking down less irradiated sources, which was an interesting aside.
Re: (Score:2)
New Vegas's problem isn't combat, it's glitches. And not just any glitches, but the game-killing kind. I lost 5 hours of gameplay just the other night because I went into Vault 3 on the Brotherhood of Steel mission without realizing that this is game-save suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't get my juices flowing at all. The only reason my pipe burst is because the liquid froze.
O_o
You're doing it wrong.