Criticism, praise and hopes for Bethesda's next games after Skyrim

[sajuukkhar9000]

I personally enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. It was very difficult for me to beat or finish DA1, but easy and smooth to beat DA2, and I enjoyed the combat of DA2 more. And this can't be just because of an assumption that I'm an "action game" type of guy rather than a hardcore RPG kind of gamer, because I still consider Fallout I and II, which were not even real-time but turn-based, all-time favorites of mine and classics. I loved them and enjoyed them a lot. So there must be another secret as to why I get sucked into BioWare's games more than Bethesda's, and why I enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. Perhaps it is a "big picture vs. details" kind of thing, or a "micromanagement vs. don't bother me with details" kind of thing. From the arguments on forums back in the day, I noticed that lots of people actually loved the complexity of DA1 and ME1, and hated the simplicity of DA2 and ME2, while I felt completely the opposite way; lots of people actually wanted to micromanage their protagonists and their companions' gear upgrades in ME2 and DA2 just as they used to do in DA1 and ME2; heck, some even wanted to micromanage or "have control" over the freaking ammo types and bullet types!! I was like, "What the hell?!!!!!!" This is a nightmare for me, and I don't want to be bothered with such minute details; I'm not interested in micromanagement. I'm quite happy with automated upgrading of most things, and just a little bit of control over the type of weapons I use and general category of armor (light or heavy), and that's about it...let me jump into the fray and start to actually use those weapons in the fight. I have little time to spend in micromanaging in a game really; there's enough of that in real life. That's just how I think about it, and that's partially why I appreciated many of the changes in DA2 and ME2. But maybe others actually enjoy the same exact things that I dread. The solution, in my opinion, is to allow the players that level of micromanagement, but to also give players like me the option to simply just have those things automated. And don't get me wrong; I never ever allow ME2 or DA2 to automatically level up my character, I hate that. I definitely want to have control over what kinds of powers I give to my character, but also choose ammo type? Hell no, thanks.

The Dragon Age style game is BUILT around micromanagement, Baldur's Gate was the same way, and DA was supposed to be the spiritual sequel to BG. Also having control over the bullet types is like having control over what type of sword you use in Skyrim. I wouldn't want to be forced to use 1 swords handed only. It was insulting and gross oversimplification to remove ammo types. It is literally the whole point of the game.

 

Strange, I never felt that way in ME2. I never felt that any of the conversation were that long. In fact, you can totally just skip the whole conversation by going for the options on the right side? The options on the left side are what keep the conversation going. The game that actually did make me feel that way you describe was The Witcher 2! Oh my God, that game started with such long, long conversations, and right off the bat, before I could even start killing one single enemy! And some of the accents used in those long conversations weren't even the most pleasant to listen to, so I was like, "Oh man, when is this ever gonna end?? Why do you have to take so long right in the beginning of the story, and telling me something that I have absolutely no idea about...I don't even know what this dude with a weird accent is talking about!"

Considering that the game rewards you with bonus items for choosing the options on the left not clicking them only denies you content. You are pretty much forced into the left hand options to get the full game. But yes Witcher 2 was bad with that.

 

Please pay close attention to as many walking NPCs as possible, especially right at the moment when the foot behind touches the ground, you'll see the foot or shoe touching the ground, stopping, then literally sliding backwards (moonwalking style). Also pay attention to your own feet in third-person view on irregular surfaces in dungeons, for example, and you may be able to find a good distance between your shoes and the ground, as if your character is floating. I can try and screenshot the latter if I am bothered, or Fraps the moonwalking if I'm crazy enough just to prove my point. If anyone can second what I'm describing, I'd be grateful...at least so I can be sure whether I have a bug or not!

Yeah I looked and my Skyrim's NPCs they don't do that for me.

 

Not true, and the proof is: the same engine (Unreal) that produced Borderlands was the one that produced Gears of War! Enough said.

The engine Borderlands was a heavily modified Unreal, base unreal does not do that. Half Life 1 used a heavily modified Quake 1 engine because the normal Quake 1 engine couldn't do that. A heavily modified engine =/= the normal engine, Please learn how engines work.

 

That's if you understand "cinematic" in a comprehensive or thorough fashion; cinematic is almost always used in the gaming industry to refer specifically to the quality of graphics, not the gameplay. Make a game cinematic has nothing to do with gameplay, but it means make it wow us with its graphics and visuals.

cinematic in gaming is almost exclusively used to describe games that use many scripted events that take the camera control out of the players hands so the DEVs can show them an explosion.this is bad game design.

 

Yeah, heard it all before, nice and all, but alas...Gordon is mute. The poor retard. :( I mean, that girl smiles at him like an angel, asks questions, makes comments, and he just stands there like a statue.

 

If you "pretend" that you replied by saying something in your mind, then really, why don't you also pretend that whatever is happening in the cut-scene is really happening to you. See, "taking control away" from the player was an expression invented by Valve to glamorize their game (a game that didn't really need any extra glamor or glorifying because it was a good game anyway for that matter?) with some sort of concept of "control" that is, in reality and essence, empty, misleading, and useless? I mean, there is a cut-scene sort of event in the game, ok...and I can actually move around while it's happening...errmm...ok? I can move around, look around....so?? ......? See, so nothing. So what if I can move around while a cut-scene type of event is happening? "I'm in control"? Really? And what am I effectively doing with that control? Moving around? Looking at the cute event from a slightly different angle? Come on, let's get serious.

 

And let me use a specific example to demonstrate my point. In Mass Effect 2's last scene of escape, when Shepard runs then leaps heroically to try to grasp the edge of the Normandy in the last second, all in slow motion; yes, it would've been nice if there was a "jump" button or mechanic in the game to begin with so that we'd make that jump ourselves, but even then, if we do jump and fly to the Normandy that way, would you rather be looking at a very redundant scene of yourself dashing forward with the camera still behind your shoulders, or would you rather the camera did switch to the side to show that jump in slow motion like we'd see in the movies? 90% of the people will definitely choose to watch "themselves" through the eye of a side camera, making that epic jump in slow motion. And in order to that, you will have to switch the camera angle or switch to a different camera momentarily. Valve would like to have you believe that they "took control away from you", but the reality is that you still have control, you can simply just skip the scene if you really want to (and I'm aware that BioWare forbids skipping many scenes, but I'm just saying that's how it works in several others games, you press Esc or another button and skip the scene). And the reality is that they're not taking control away from you, but showing you the fruit of your heroic deeds. Moreover, how the hell can you see the facial expressions of anger or threatening or confidence on your protagonist's face without switching to a different camera? And even though Gordon is mute, he is not faceless; Valve does portray Gordon's face very prominently, yet surprise surprise, they conveniently never show you the face in-game, all under the pretense that they "don't want to take control away from you"...really? So I'm not just mute in-game, but I also can't even see my own facial expressions? Effectively making me a voiceless AND faceless entity? And then they pretend it's for my immersion and that it's because I'm Gordon? Really??! Well, if I am Gordon, then WTF is my face not on the game box?!!!!!! I can just go on and on about how Valve contradicts itself and markets their attempts with such misleading labels like "take away control" or "keep control", and it's all hogwash. Let's just agree that Half-Life was an awesome game, a classic in its own right, Half-Life II was a worthy sequel, and leave it at that, because there was absolutely nothing good about making my protagonist voiceless and faceless in-game, claiming it's because it's me, then actually giving the protagonist a face outside the game...a face that is not mine, I hasten to add. If you can pretend that Gordon is you while Gordon is mute in Half-Life, and you can also pretend that Gordon does reply to people and make funny comments when he is actually and clearly mute in-game, then I don't see why I can't pretend that Shepard is me, and that that smile of his in-game is actually me smiling , and that that angry tone is me being badass and putting the bad guy in his place. I think the latter makes much more sense to me and is perfectly immersive, while the former makes me feel that something is wrong and something is missing.

 

1. Gordon is not mute, you simply do not hear him speak when he does so the player can put whatever they want in his stead.

2. Valve doesn't use cutscenes, I don't get the point you were trying to make about being able to move in cutscenes. Valve doesn't use them, and I don't like them, because they are poor game design.

3. For your Mass Effect example, I would rather run to the ship myself and press the jump button myself. Games are meant to be played, any point you can let them play the game you should.

4. You don't see your face or your facial expressions in Valve games so you can put whatever you want there. They cant guess what your facial expressions would be.

5. You cant be faceless in a valve game unless you are faceless IRL, or have no ability to imagine your face being there.

6. You cant pretend Shepard is you becuase he will do things and make facial expressions you may not have, in bioware games you are not the character, you are just controlling them.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Syco21]

So, I killed some guards. And other guards show up, see the body annnnnd..... Ignore it. What the hell? Why don't they shout "someone's been murdered!" ??? And why do they leave the bodies lying around? People need to react to a murder and the bodies need to be removed. Perhaps maybe a morgue or something.

[sajuukkhar9000]

So, I killed some guards. And other guards show up, see the body annnnnd..... Ignore it. What the hell? Why don't they shout "someone's been murdered!" ??? And why do they leave the bodies lying around? People need to react to a murder and the bodies need to be removed. Perhaps maybe a morgue or something.

 

Odd when I murder people in a town everyone runs over and says something about it.

 

Also I would love to see the animation of someone dragging it to the halls of the dead. Beyond that some bodies do disappear after a couple days.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Syco21]

Maybe it's a bug then. I always kill them in secret. I don't want a bounty, but I want their souls. MUWAHAHAHAHA

 

At anyrate *shrugs* They haven't done it so far and the bodies remaining thing pisses me off.

[sajuukkhar9000]

Maybe it's a bug then. I always kill them in secret. I don't want a bounty, but I want their souls. MUWAHAHAHAHA

 

At anyrate *shrugs* They haven't done it so far and the bodies remaining thing pisses me off.

 

I think its only generic NPC bodies that get removed, I know guard bodies also get removed.

 

Named NPCs may not.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Syco21]

They automatically disappear after a certain number of days, which is fine for some instances. But when the body is in the middle of the town square or an area with a lot of traffic(like the town halls), then they should be removed within that day.

 

As for the "MURDER MURDER" stuff, they do it now. Musta been a bug or maybe a flaw in the script.

[seanxx]

The Witcher 2 new engine also is also very forgiving on the lowest end for lower pc but on the higher end looks amazing. But I dont think its laziness that makes Bethesda stick with the same engine that ran Fallout3, its just a question of priorities, The reason they could put in 200 plus dungeons, gazillion quests and give people hundreds hours of game time in the game is that put that as a priority before making a new engine.

 

personally I accept about a third cut in pure size if it meant better companion AIs with more fleshout stories, better UI and improvement on clipping issues.

[RokHere]

The Dragon Age style game is BUILT around micromanagement, Baldur's Gate was the same way, and DA was supposed to be the spiritual sequel to BG. Also having control over the bullet types is like having control over what type of sword you use in Skyrim. I wouldn't want to be forced to use 1 swords handed only. It was insulting and gross oversimplification to remove ammo types. It is literally the whole point of the game.

Not really, no. If you want to micromanage, you're free to go back to Sins of the Solar Empire or even one of the Civilizations. People don't play RPGs to choose their freaking ammo or arrow types; they play RPGs to enjoy a story while gaming for a change and to experience fictional worlds from different perspectives, like a stealth perspective, or a mage one, or a meele one, etc. And changing arrow or ammo types is NOT like changing swords; even in real life ffs, people change the gun they'd like to use and simply buy the ammo for that specific gun; they don't go around and get out of their way to buy custom-made bullets. And if that's the whole point of an RPG for you, then you've missed the whole point and...again...you're living in your own delusional world. Seriously, wake up and smell the coffee; the world does not work like you think it does. Proof: DA2; we didn't get it that way from DA1 because BioWare wanted to produce something bad, but because they wanted to produce something commercially successful, and that's exactly what they did. Just because you find other people like you on the forums, this doesn't mean that most fans of the game want what you want; the reality is that I'm one of the very few players of my type who actually care enough to write in forums. Most players who don't want to be bothered with details, like me, don't bother with forums either, which is why you don't get to read about their interests very often. However, there is gameplay feedback that is sent to BioWare with your permission, and that's how they make decisions about what gets played or used the most in games; you're a member of a minority group, face it.

 

Considering that the game rewards you with bonus items for choosing the options on the left not clicking them only denies you content. You are pretty much forced into the left hand options to get the full game.

Not really, no. The options on the left are just for people who want to engage in conversation and enjoy the story (regardless to whether they're enjoying it for the first time or the 5th time). You'll get all the items and all the quests just fine if you always cut to the chase and choose something from the right options.

 

Yeah I looked and my Skyrim's NPCs they don't do that for me.

My game isn't crashing, so I highly doubt it's a bug on my end. I have encountered before a situation like this; someone on the forums insisted that something did not exist in ME2, and when I proved it with a screenshot, they never replied in the thread again. So let me ask you this as a test: Does Mass Effect 2 have jaggies? Like, non-antialiased graphics?

 

The engine Borderlands was a heavily modified Unreal, base unreal does not do that. Half Life 1 used a heavily modified Quake 1 engine because the normal Quake 1 engine couldn't do that. A heavily modified engine =/= the normal engine, Please learn how engines work.

I know that Borderlands used a modified Unreal engine; please learn to stop inflating your knowledge, because you obviously know less than me about many things, and I repeatedly shoot down your arguments with proof, and it has been made obvious a few times on this thread. And when all you can do to counter-argue is to twist words and start to use subjective adjectives around the names, you look even more pathetic. Face it, without shoving subjective, relative, opinionated adjectives like "heavily", and "modified", and "normal", you have no argument at all, and you're intellectually broke. It is damn obvious. And let me prove it in front of any other readers: without using adjectives, tell me which engine was used to produce Borderlands, and which engine was used to produce Gears of War? We're not interested in what YOU personally think is "heavy" or "light", excessive or negligible, we're not interested in a vague description like "modified", as if all other games use their engines exactly as they got it from the developer without changing even a line of code in it...we just want to get to the bottom of the issue: which engines were used for those games? No beating around the bush or twisting words or using opinionated adjectives. If you have the guts to do this, you'll suddenly realize how utterly pathetic you sound when desperately trying to convince yourself that you're right about the so many things you were wrong about.

 

cinematic in gaming is almost exclusively used to describe games that use many scripted events that take the camera control out of the players hands so the DEVs can show them an explosion.this is bad game design.

"This is bad game design", is that a scientific fact? Or another subjective, opinionated remark? Seriously, if you cannot use specific examples or logical reasons for your declarations, then save your opinions to yourself, because they hurt your credibility and make you sound like a fanatic even more. Given the huge success of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 1 (which did switch cameras to show slow-motion kills of dragons and such), apparently "bad game design" sells pretty damn well. What can we say?! Everyone's taste is bad, except you.

 

1. Gordon is not mute, you simply do not hear him speak when he does so the player can put whatever they want in his stead.

Really? How do I put whatever I want though? Valve never gave me a chance to record my own comments and answers and then "put" them in the game. They never even allowed me to type my answers and have them showing on the screen. So how exactly do I "put whatever I want" to prove that Gordon is not mute? And what would your cousin say when they hear you claiming that Gordon is not mute, but see Gordon staring blankly at an NPC after another after another, while all those NPCs are asking him questions, and Gordon just stands there silently, then moves away to do something? When your cousin asks, "Why isn't your character saying anything??", what will you tell them? "Because I can put whatever I want"? I imagine their second question will be, "Put whatever you want? Put it where? I can't hear or read anything!" I don't know how you'll handle this...put it in your head? If I were them, I'd be like, "Oookay?..." Then walk away. Gordon is mute. The problem is not that we cannot hear him; the problem is that he does not say anything at all. Thus, he is mute. And there's no way on earth you can prove otherwise. Playing with words doesn't make you look smart; it makes you look opinionated, stupid, and fanatic.

 

2. Valve doesn't use cutscenes, I don't get the point you were trying to make about being able to move in cutscenes. Valve doesn't use them, and I don't like them, because they are poor game design.

Another "poor game design" verse in your gaming holy scripture, great. Apparently almost every single successful game today was produced with very poor game design, because every single one of them had cut-scenes. Well done. Please keep it up to entertain readers of the thread, dude.

 

4. You don't see your face or your facial expressions in Valve games so you can put whatever you want there. They cant guess what your facial expressions would be.

Yeah, again how? How do I put whatever I want "there"? Without sounding like a lunatic, that is.

 

5. You cant be faceless in a valve game unless you are faceless IRL, or have no ability to imagine your face being there.

Too bad Valve already contradicted their own claims after brainwashing you with them, buddy. We all know what Gordon's face actually looks like, because Valve showed it to the whole world so prominently in the marketing material for Half-Life and on the very box of the game. Basically, they've already established Gordon's face outside the game, but made him faceless in-game...and voiceless. All brainwashed delusional fanatics like you "put their own face", and forget that Gordon actually does have a face, but Valve just doesn't show it in the game for some reason, and they managed to convince the brainwashed fans that it's so they can put their faces there instead or imagine their own faces. As if that makes sense, not just with the existence already of a fictional face for Gordon, but with the very simple fact that the character also has a full name: Gordon Freeman. So for some reason, it makes sense to people like you (and Valve shockingly was confident that it will make perfect sense to people like you! Wow! Well, they were right anyway), it makes sense to people like you to "put their own faces there" or imagine their own faces, while at the same time, they're being called "Gordon", not called by their own names. Again, as if that makes sense even from the perspective of immersion.

 

6. You cant pretend Shepard is you becuase he will do things and make facial expressions you may not have, in bioware games you are not the character, you are just controlling them.

Uh huh. But in Valve's game, you will be called a name, Gordon, that does apply to you and who you really are; in Valve's game, Gordon will do things that you will surely want to do, every single time; in Valve's game, you will make a comment (in your head and imagination) that makes perfect sense with the response you will hear next from the NPC. In Valve's game...you are the character, because your name is Gordon Freeman in real life. I get it. Thanks, dude; I'm suddenly enlightened about the striking difference between Valve's game, and how you're not controlling Gordon but you ARE Gordon in their game, and BioWare games, and how you just control Shepard in their games. May we all have bits of your wisdom.

[RbtRvltin]

I think they should finally abolish "maps". (not the map, but different computer screens). Yes it saves some RAM to have less in memory, but really 2012 it should be possible to have a single map only and no longer any loading screens. You walk into the house, and just walk into a house. No need to load a new "map". Same with dungeons. Can't they just be caves in the world map? Why again the needs for map levels? IMHO this is an artefact of historic development that finally should been said goodbye to.

 

What I would also like to see, is the game characters judging your character by your action, like Ultima 4 did, ignore a beggar, and you lose "generous" tag. (been seen at) running away from a fight, loose bravery rating. etc.

 

 

I agree with both things you say 110%. My performance is fine(unless there's ice around, grr.) even with highest textures and Skyrim HD outside. Also, from what I've seen, all of the 3d environments fit in with each other(I just use TCL and check what the cities look like XD). However, Breezehome takes me 7 minutes to load with lowest graphics and no enhancement mods. I see no reason for loading screens, unless you forget what level you're at and also forgot that the tab menu shows you. :unsure:

 

Also, the no consequences is bull. Hired thugs? Really? That get sent after you even if nobody sees you? That the people whose names are on the contracts don't remember? Skyrim needs some serious renovations, just saying.

 

Ok, I'm done flaming.

[rabidNode]

There are fundamentals that will restrict games from fully becoming what they are meant to be.

1. Publisher and Investors. This is number 1 and is essentially why games get pushed earlier than they should and cater to one path as well. In this all kinds of unique and experimental stuff gets thrown out because it can increase risk and lessen money back to the publisher/investor. Of course publishers never seem to learn that the riskiest projects have brought in the most revneue and created the greatest of successes. The TES genre itself from daggerfall was a giant risk experiment. Unfortunately as soon as it got popular it has gone down an ugly road decreasing innovation and making very pretty pretty

 

2. Visual always win. It doesnt matter if you have a complex book or a piece of code that is revolutionary the number one thing that is going to be pushed in a game is visuals visuals visuals. Hence dialog and quests and innovative experimental code will be thrown out if it does not fit into the timeline.

 

3. The Mass rules. Experimental game design and even reading and in depth rpgs does not appeal to gamers today. As time goes on everything has been dumbed down to almost playing a movie. Visuals and combat are number one and win over any kind of content every single time.

 

4. Back when they created a poll about death in games and decided somewhere in the early days of popularizing FF challenge became a negative. Hence easy game easy play easy everything. In the speed at which games are played consumed and thrown out content is irrelevant because it is not paid much attention to.

 

These are few fundamentals that will play into how games are going to increase in their dumbing down to a point at which they will simply be playable movies. Once the glitches are meted out of the console situation PC titles and the experimental stuff will be even more a no show.

 

Then we have steam and the long gone days of actually owning games. In this we will see games we will play on remote machines and the code as in online games will be off limits.

 

The thing is gamers voted and the mass majority voted for worse games then they *censored* and buy another one.