Directions.
First grade: Cities and towns.
Second Grade: Landmarks, unique landscapes
Third grade: camps, caves.
Directions start with a first grade, then a second grade to a final third grade to be followable. I just wanted to point if there are many caves around and not enough unique landscapes, combined with lack of landmarks then directions would be telling a cave relative to another cave.
"The camp is due north from Maar Gan, but high ridges lie in the way. Follow Foyada Bani-Dad, a deep ravine just north of Maar Gan, northwest to the sea. A shipwreck at the seamouth of the ravine is a landmark. Swim east around the headland. Pass east through the ruins of Assurnabitashpi Shrine. Urshilaku Camp lies east of the ruins, inland in a low hollow."
Bani-Dad(this doesn't have a name on the map)
shipwreck(this doesn't even have a name!)
Do you think it is the names that help me find the camp here? :wink_smile: And even if Morrowind didn't have a map showing me the names like Assurnabitashpi, I would still be fine. The information is there inside the game. Map reflects this information, I never saw it as a cheat but I still rarely use it, it is more of a backup.
I understand what you mean now, I still see a problem with it, because unique landscapes is what "hills" was supposed to be in morrowind, and it was pretty clear that apparently the game had a very specific definition of what constituted a hill. You might find things through landscape, but I find that to be way to uncertain. When I navigated Morrowind, and things made sense, was when they used things that could not be either mistaken or misunderstood, like caves, shrines or mines. Because when you find said place, you will know without a doubt that you are on the right track, unless all second grade directions are as clear as a ship wreck, they just aren't reliable IMO. I would already have filtered deep ravine out of things to look for, because that is just too vague a term, when you are on an island with volcano full of deep ravines.
I like you are bringing real world topic. I am in the opinion that real world holding all the answers. The problem lies under two notions.
Information
Interactivity
The design in Morrowind is lacking in interactivity more than information. If it was interactive enough: these problems would exist? Does it make any sense to send someone to dangerous places with complex directions, in real life? The real life can be modeled and applied to game world, not exactly but for a better implementation. Like NPCs pointing the direction in realtime? Or shouting the bloody name of the NPC and he/she appears, "Jane Doe here. What's the problem?".
I just think Morrowind system was adding a layer of interactivity and information(detail) to the world. Taking it is taking interactivity and detail. And I like my games interactive and detailed. I want this layer back with more interactivity and detail. Suddenly being forced to *imagine* this aspect of the game makes me baffled.
It makes sense to send someone to dangerous places with complex directions, that's why I said it has roleplay value, but it doesn't make sense that someone would just make you rely on that alone, if you had a map, obviously the logical thing would be to convey that info onto the map which would provide an either clearer understanding of the path your supposed to take. If they are supposed to do this stuff I would rather have them do it right and give you a real map with real info, and no ability to see yourself on it, and a compass. The arrow is nothing but a representation of the compass, on real compasses you usually have a separate needle or arrow that you can turn, to make sure that you are going in a specific direction with specific number of degrees relative to the poles. This means that any time you get confused you can center the poles and you center your direction as well.
It is hard for me to think people are against improvements. Not here. Just because they are Morrowind fans. No way. I know the immediate conclusion of "they should do what X did". But what they do mean is another thing. To find out, let's ask them! "Do you mean improve on X or do it exactly like X?"
It is like asking, "do you want a better game?". Off course they do.
Improvement is subjective to everyone, everybody wants improvement, but not everything is considered an improvement. For example a lot of people already considers Morrowind an improvement, so saying "they should do what morrowind did" is already saying, "I want a better game". I want a better game, but doing what morrowind did, is most definitely not what will make it a better game, IMO.
To improve upon Morrowind is also to insinuate that Morrowind isn't perfect, which is taboo. That is why people emphasis on things being done
like Morrowind instead of better than morrowind, it is more a tribute than a suggestion. Morrowind is a rolemodel, not a stepping stone, it is the ideal, not the sketch. It's even more than that, it's the realistic ideal, "just do it like morrowind, then I'll be fine", it's the compromise, it's enough.
Of course this is not true, but that doesn't stop it from being practiced. They shouldn't do what morrowind did, :whisper:
because morrowind didn't do it right.
I'm also not happy with the "muddy gray"(I had an anology in my previous post about "muddy gray" which I deleted later for a shorter post.) state of these conversations. For people to have a clear understanding, there needs to be discussions. We should take the risk and provide as much clearness as we can. I am trying. For example:
"They should do what Morrowind did."
A) Why? Where? How?
B) No, they shouldn't. You hypocrite, anti-progression, nostalgia goggle wearing Morrowind fans.
I choose A), usually I just jump over A) though, and go to A
2) because I've been down this road a million times, It's like watching a carefully constructed chain reaction, like domino blocks. The questions aren't real questions, because you know the answers, you just ask them to make the one answering them think about what he's saying instead of repeating what someone else said.