debaser Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) Ok, first you criticize Skyrim's map as feeling more like a park than an actual world ... and then you argue that battles need to be larger even if it's not realistic because it's a fantasy, so realism can take a backseat? Make up your mind! Do you want it realistic or not? "Realistic fantasy world" is not the same as "similar to the real world". It should feel like a believable fantasy world, but it doesn't need to be a reflection of medieval Europe. If you want people to feel like this is a civil war tearing apart an entire province of a vast empire, don't portray battles with 10-20 soldiers involved. That's not a battle, that's a large bar brawl. If your engine can't show what your story demands, that's understandable. Just get clever about it. Offscreen that action, think more about scale, tell different kinds of stories. The problem isn't that the game worlds are too small - they're huge. They just suffer from a goofy sense of scale. Morrowind was not great at this, but at least it was only trying to portray one sparsely populated area of a fringe province. Oblivion and Skyrim have both gotten successively worse at it as the design goals and motivations behind the series have changed. By the way, you mentioned the Round Table before as an example. Did you know according to the legend, the Round Table was supposed to seat up to 1600 men? Edited May 5, 2017 by debaser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stebbinsd Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 If your engine can't show what your story demands, that's understandable. Just get clever about it.Well, they delete soldiers' bodies and swap them out with other soldiers. So you're still required to kill hundreds of soldiers; just only about 20 men at a time. By the way, you mentioned the Round Table before as an example. Did you know according to the legend, the Round Table was supposed to seat up to 1600 men? I highly doubt that. The whole point of the table being round was so the King could look at each one in the eye. In other words ... no favorites. Assuming that each seat was 1-meter wide (giving the knights enough "elbow room"), that would give the table a circumference of 1,600 meters, meaning that the table would be approximately 509 meters in diameter. Just to put that in perspective, that's more than 550 yards ... five and a half times the length of an American football field! Aside from that table being freakishly huge, it also means that some knights cannot be looked in the eye by the king because they're seated five and a half football fields away from the king ... which defeats the whole purpose of the table being round to begin with. Besides ... do any of the castles in England have dining rooms big enough to hold a 550-yard-wide table? I know the castles are big, but not that big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debaser Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 The legend of King Arthur is a fantasy story anyway, so it doesn't matter, but: http://www.kingarthursknights.com/faq/roundtable.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts