CamonnaTong Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 It was Late alpha and the rock thing doesn't prove anything anyways. It is more that they need to tweak it so that said rock doesn't do that. By the way many think that rock thing was unrealistic but at least it showed that the rock had more collision than Oblivion. That is not a bad thing because that rock needed the collision. But they need to have it tweaked still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hejpadig Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) It was Late alpha and the rock thing doesn't prove anything anyways. It is more that they need to tweak it so that said rock doesn't do that. By the way many think that rock thing was unrealistic but at least it showed that the rock had more collision than Oblivion. That is not a bad thing because that rock needed the collision. But they need to have it tweaked still. But precisely this is sort of a sign that Skyrim will be limited. It means that you can't climb any mountain the way you want to climb it, you have to follow a certain path, which isn't really that awesome in my opinion. But this is just me guessing. Edited August 21, 2011 by hejpadig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Pretty sure in the first GI reveal, or in one of the interviews shortly there after Todd talks about how the terrain, well the mountains, form natural boundaries that isolate certain areas from being easily accessible early on. I think it might have been in regard level scaling, and how there are leveled zones. So it does sound like there will be impassible terrain to some degree. I kinda don't mind that idea. Walking up to the top of a mountain should be something you do not talk lightly. And should you attempt a difficult climb, use the fricking trail. No one is climbing up those big mountains on sides that are shear faces, they go the logical route. It probably sounds much worse than it actually is. It probably makes more sense to a degree. With the Radiant story they have to keep it open enough for newb characters to get to every place of interest. I'm sure there are going to be hard to get to or impossible places (just nothing but a nice view). It may have the benefit... er effect of making the start out lvl 1 character having to traverse some part of the world, in theory leveling up along the way, before ending up at the mother dragon cave of Alduin or some such uber end game difficulty creature. As soon as you level up some I bet it starts to open up more. It is very difficult to develop an open world game where all areas are accessible, it leaves a lot of variables to testers. As long as it is minor and makes sense, and as long as there are no invisible walls herding me though the game. x10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamonnaTong Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Pretty sure in the first GI reveal, or in one of the interviews shortly there after Todd talks about how the terrain, well the mountains, form natural boundaries that isolate certain areas from being easily accessible early on. I think it might have been in regard level scaling, and how there are leveled zones. So it does sound like there will be impassible terrain to some degree. I kinda don't mind that idea. Walking up to the top of a mountain should be something you do not talk lightly. And should you attempt a difficult climb, use the fricking trail. No one is climbing up those big mountains on sides that are shear faces, they go the logical route. It probably sounds much worse than it actually is. It probably makes more sense to a degree. With the Radiant story they have to keep it open enough for newb characters to get to every place of interest. I'm sure there are going to be hard to get to or impossible places (just nothing but a nice view). It may have the benefit... er effect of making the start out lvl 1 character having to traverse some part of the world, in theory leveling up along the way, before ending up at the mother dragon cave of Alduin or some such uber end game difficulty creature. As soon as you level up some I bet it starts to open up more. It is very difficult to develop an open world game where all areas are accessible, it leaves a lot of variables to testers. As long as it is minor and makes sense, and as long as there are no invisible walls herding me though the game. x10 Still to me the mountain thing was like Oblivion's. In Oblivion could you climb up said mountain always in every part? No, because only certain paths allow to to get places like say Gnoll Mountain. It is very much like Oblivion and as the not being able to access early on thing is true. But still that would be like saying "I can't access Paradise in Early Oblivion." I think it will be like this. That certain things will open it up along the way. And for those that say Morrowind wasn't like that as well it was. In Tribunal there was a Dwemer ruin but you could only access it and do more by doing the Tribunal Main Quest. In all certainty to allow a dungeon or something that has to do with a quest or such to be accessed at a Level which is too low would be dumb on Bethsoft's part and I am glad they aren't doing it. RDR had areas only accessible by Main Quest these areas were home to high level (Gun wise and there protection Bears are hard to kill sometimes.) creatures and stuff. After that quest was done you couldn't go back there. I like the way RDR did this but to go back would be great. Which I am sure Bethsoft will allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimembrain Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgvlgv Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[why would u like any restrictions what so ever? are u saying u preffer restrictions before an open world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimembrain Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[why would u like any restrictions what so ever? are u saying u preffer restrictions before an open world? I'm saying that fallout 3 wasn't that bad .. only near the city did it get bad and if you watch the making of videos they even explain why .. they intended the city to be fully explorable and be much bigger but they said it was too easy to get lost so they chopped a lot of it out .. which clearly explains the walls everywhere near the downtown area .. aside from downtown "which was pretty small" I didnt see any of the issues in the main open world at all .. NV was freaking horrible though .. locked off everything that wasnt on the path they wanted you on .. I'm just saying it could be a lot worse and I thought fallout 3's restrictions were minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgvlgv Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[why would u like any restrictions what so ever? are u saying u preffer restrictions before an open world? I'm saying that fallout 3 wasn't that bad .. only near the city did it get bad and if you watch the making of videos they even explain why .. they intended the city to be fully explorable and be much bigger but they said it was too easy to get lost so they chopped a lot of it out .. which clearly explains the walls everywhere near the downtown area .. aside from downtown "which was pretty small" I didnt see any of the issues in the main open world at all .. NV was freaking horrible though .. locked off everything that wasnt on the path they wanted you on .. I'm just saying it could be a lot worse and I thought fallout 3's restrictions were minor.ok i think i understand, i dident play them that mutch becose i dident like any of them as mutch as Oblivion. but i did like the zombies specially with the "im a legend" sound mod :) sorry about the late edit, i remeber now why i dident like those games mutch..The number one reason was that i h8ed the !small things! u couldent get over and the unbeliveble roundtrip u had to take to get to a place witch made u so frustrated that it was easyer to fast travel to south/north/west/est of the location u wanted and walk from there. and many times u had to atleast pick 2 or 3 attempts to get to the ONLY way in,dont know if i make sence in my broken english. Edited August 21, 2011 by lgvlgv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimembrain Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[why would u like any restrictions what so ever? are u saying u preffer restrictions before an open world? I'm saying that fallout 3 wasn't that bad .. only near the city did it get bad and if you watch the making of videos they even explain why .. they intended the city to be fully explorable and be much bigger but they said it was too easy to get lost so they chopped a lot of it out .. which clearly explains the walls everywhere near the downtown area .. aside from downtown "which was pretty small" I didnt see any of the issues in the main open world at all .. NV was freaking horrible though .. locked off everything that wasnt on the path they wanted you on .. I'm just saying it could be a lot worse and I thought fallout 3's restrictions were minor.ok i think i understand, i dident play them that mutch becose i dident like any of them as mutch as Oblivion. but i did like the zombies specially with the "im a legend" sound mod :) Really? .. Did you do many side quests? .. I remember on my first playthru I thought the game felt really locked off because I kept thinking the bulk of it was in the sewers and city .. Then I got into the side quests and exploring the open world areas and had a blast .. It wasn't as alive as oblivion but the things you could find out in the waste were far more original and varied.. I still like oblivion more but only with mods .. I'm a bit of a graphics "prostitute" LOLs at this sites strange sense of cursing xD Edit: yea .. I get that too but that was mostly with the main quests Edited August 21, 2011 by jedimembrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgvlgv Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 I wouldn't mind fallout 3 level of area restriction .. its a NV level of restriction I would be afraid of "Yes I know its not a bethesda game" I just also know a TON of people loved that game and bethesda might get the wrong idea about it's fans :[why would u like any restrictions what so ever? are u saying u preffer restrictions before an open world? I'm saying that fallout 3 wasn't that bad .. only near the city did it get bad and if you watch the making of videos they even explain why .. they intended the city to be fully explorable and be much bigger but they said it was too easy to get lost so they chopped a lot of it out .. which clearly explains the walls everywhere near the downtown area .. aside from downtown "which was pretty small" I didnt see any of the issues in the main open world at all .. NV was freaking horrible though .. locked off everything that wasnt on the path they wanted you on .. I'm just saying it could be a lot worse and I thought fallout 3's restrictions were minor.ok i think i understand, i dident play them that mutch becose i dident like any of them as mutch as Oblivion. but i did like the zombies specially with the "im a legend" sound mod :) Really? .. Did you do many side quests? .. I remember on my first playthru I thought the game felt really locked off because I kept thinking the bulk of it was in the sewers and city .. Then I got into the side quests and exploring the open world areas and had a blast .. It wasn't as alive as oblivion but the things you could find out in the waste were far more original and varied.. I still like oblivion more but only with mods .. I'm a bit of a graphics "prostitute" LOLs at this sites strange sense of cursing xD Edit: yea .. I get that too but that was mostly with the main questsunfortunally i was only playing those games at my friends house but it discurage me so mutch i never bought the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts