Why do people play a Todd Howard game?

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:33 pm

The link describes why they removed the best part of TES magic. What they also removed was certain spells feather, fortify attributes/skills, levitate, slowfall, jump spells, water walking, dispel, weakness spells, poison, direct damage, damage fatigue and several other effects that I would argue limits the roleplaying potential of the mage build.

They did indeed take the magic out of the system. Now people have said that it was overpowered bug one could create any type of spell they wanted within the confines of the system of course. The system is gutted and a shell of its former self.

@Gizmo

I disagres that anything was short term for me with spell creation. Every spell that I used with any spell caster was custom spells a part of this 9s my roleplay in that I had an ancient mage teach the magic users how to refine their art and practice spell craft. It was quite simply a lot more fun for me to be the architect of my own mages design than use the one dimensional spells that already existed.
User avatar
Czar Kahchi
 
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:56 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:16 am

That always makes me laugh :D

I'm not a fan of Todd, but the guy has 10 in charisma.

User avatar
meg knight
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:20 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:57 pm

Indeed; and just why people play http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Tobbit-1.jpg. :wink:

Limits? [As in... the inclusion of these spells limits roleplaying a mage?]
User avatar
Katy Hogben
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:20 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:11 pm

How can I go about a more alteration oriented mage that focuses on manipulating the environment around them with water walking and using my jump spells to propel myself to extreme heights then slowfall to make falling a more palatable experience.

In Oblivion consider your in Dagons Deadlands. With spell creation I could walk on lava a with no health damage by water walking for 30 seconds combined with healing and 10 points of damage per second.

It's these types of limits in game. As far as outside the game nothing makes sense as to why the magic can no longer be manipulated and it's a travesty. It limits the showing of a mages arcane knowledge understanding in game the manipulation of the machinations of magic.

I could use direct damage effects that are more suitable to a non elemental mage.

I could use damage fatigue for a non lethal effect to escape and better create a more passive mage.
User avatar
Emma
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:51 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:11 pm

Someone could ask the legitimate question:

"Why bother?"

I am not so much disagreeing with you on the subject, just highlighting a problem that I feel even you adressed here.

Who here remembers the teeny tiny little ants on the tree stumps in Skyrim?
Thats right. They go so far as to animate LITTLE ANTS in Skyrim, something that most gamers wouldn't give 2 hoots about when playing.

If it's obsessive than I am curious at which point would you decide that it's to much?

World building for an open world game is of course one of the key aspects you have to work on. But not everything needs to be detailed up to the point where you can count the ants on a tree just for those 2 players from 200 that might notice it. At least NOT on the expense of story-telling and gameplay. That's really a bit to much in my opinion.

See mine craft builds a very engaging and entertaining world - not for me, I hate the game, but many others love it. And they don't have those Skyrim/Fallout 4 like obsession to detail when it comes to the world. It's literally just all made of crude blocks. But it works. As long we only talk about the attention of detail of course!

Because on the other hand, story telling, NPCs, dialogue, pacing etc. all create tonality and add to the world building as well. It is not some kind of either chose world building or story telling. Particularly today you can do so much more with the tools at your hand where visuals are a part of it, not to mention the understanding is also better. Where developers would once decide on something because it feels right you have a lot of tropes and research to fall back on today, where you simply know what kind of button you have to push in the minds of gamers/movie goes/book readers to create a certain reaction from your audience.

To make it short, World Building is the sum of all parts, its not anymore a situation where they are separated from each other. Otherwise you could create Fallout 4 as a clone of mine craft and just sell it as that but with better visuals - obviously. But how much of an RPG would be left than? So World Building contains graphic, story telling and gameplay. Simply because all of those have an effect on you when you're playing a game. You can leave one of those elements out, sure. But it changes the experience. That's why mine craft for example as game is a one-hit-wonder, while Fallout as franchise is still going even after more than 15 years. Because of the story and setting being a part of its World.

Not to mention that this idea of only the World Building - with your definition, counts is very contradicting to the core of Fallout that was ALWAYS about telling story and the interaction between the Player, NPCs and the (post apocalyptic) world (of Fallout).

It is in that sense interesting to see how the design ideas of the old and new games are clashing together as I do also remember quotes from the original creators where the moral choices and story in the post-apoc world was more important for them than offering a new plasma rifle. Seriously, if all you have is a "World" even if it might look pretty you could end up with something that Destiny was in the begining. And I really don't think that is a good approach for Fallout as franchise.

Anyway. Those are my 5 cents on it.

*Edit, spot on Gizmo, well played :D

User avatar
Patrick Gordon
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 5:38 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:33 pm

10 in luck, since he seems to get away with everything he says lol.

User avatar
George PUluse
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:20 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:51 am

Could you rephrase this a bit? I'm not sure I am reading it as you intend, nor am I getting the intended point of it ~I think.

Ah... so (do) you mean the lack of inclusion of spell crafting... limits roleplaying a mage?
User avatar
Siidney
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:54 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:17 am

Not really. There are a heck of a lot of games claiming to be open world but aren't true open worlds. The competition they have in the open world genre is roughly on par with the comp they have in the modding fidelity they offer which is to say there is practically none.

User avatar
Jeff Tingler
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:55 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:56 am

What exactly is a "true open world" game?
User avatar
Rebecca Clare Smith
 
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:13 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:55 am

In TW2 CDPR wanted to make the potion usage more similar to how it was portrayed in the books. The potions Geralt takes aren't drinks he just downs mid fight, he must prepare physically and mentally for those potions. They kinda screwed that up though in game 2 because witcher elixirs should last a long time, not just a few minutes so from a gameplay perspective it didn't really work in TW2. I feel they hit a sweet spot with TW3 since you have mutagens and potions and they work quite differently gameplay wise and the preparation is still there.

For me combat in TW1 was... well... it was boring and brainless, a bland quicktime event that you'd repeat hundreds of times. I'll take TW2 and especially TW3's combat any day over TW1's acrobatic jumps that feel nothing like what's explained in the books.

User avatar
phil walsh
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:44 pm

Now there's a good question for another thread, though not specific to Fallout of course.

As 'open world' games have been around 35 years (since 1981's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_I:_The_First_Age_of_Darkness) there are many 'open world' games, which doesn't mean they were all good.

Bethesda's output are (I think) all big open spaces, so I think they (probably?) all count.

Ubisoft make them, though does a large city 'count'? It does for GTA's Los Santos surely, but also for Gotham City or Assassin's Creed's Paris or London?

BioWare tend to have a collection of smaller locations.

'Open world' can't just be based on scale or size, else how big is big? (the DLC vs Expansion argument)

So to be 'open' I image there have to be other criteria, which might include:

  • Non plot related content
  • World NPCs and items
  • World persistence may be a criteria (?)
User avatar
Kelly John
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:40 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

I enjoy exploring an expansive, attractive, fictional setting, and having it throw a variety of interesting problems at me. I enjoy having to imaginatively solve problems through the abilities of a person who isn't me, particularly when that person is a likeable character I have crafted myself. Those things are what draw me to RPGs, not just Todd Howard ones.

Todd has a knack for knowing what's fun about role-play, and his sense of fun doesn't clash too much with mine. His understanding of RPGs and their themes runs deeper than convention. He and his team buck convention in ways that other RPG developers do not or can not, so I can experience roles and worlds in ways I cannot anywhere else -- and it's fun!

I liken Todd's handling of games to a musician's making variations on a theme, as in Mozart's treatment of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcXO1_1DpYQ.

User avatar
Marcin Tomkow
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:31 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:36 pm

It's true... You can see evidence of this in the intro cinematic; (I've not read the books yet). But I think it was a bit late to change it, and I think gameplay should usually trump the fiction any day. It worked in the game, and in W2... well... I'm sure you recall Geralt kneeling down, up to his hips in swamp water, to meditate and prepare potions.


Perspective is an interesting thing; I liked the W1 combat for its brain; Geralt handled anything you told him to fight ~he was an accomplished swordsman after all. And with Witcher 2... Geralt is himself brainless, and merely swings the weapon in the air when you click on the mouse. :sadvaultboy:
(This ensures that a novice player will actually hinder Geralt in combat; which should never happen ~it's out of character. Geralt is an experienced fighter).

**BTW this is a problem I have ~so far with all 'Todd Howard' games. TH games seem hell bent on making a digital costume to wear; it's a dress up game with in a dress up game.
That's a poor (but valid) way to make an RPG [IMO], but it's a terrible way to make a Fallout sequel.
User avatar
Dan Stevens
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:00 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:14 pm


............you know what? [censored] awesome idea. It would be like Fo2, in a Bethesda open world game.
User avatar
Lucy
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:55 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:35 pm

No, "they" have not. It is the industry that has shifted from character-focused abilities to real-time player-focused mechanics. Bethesda is a business so they have no choice but to follow what sells (unless they want to be out of business). One of the primary complaints that is still (erroneously) made about Morrowind is that the combat is awful, that "I should be able to hit things that are right in front of me!" No, you should not, not unless your skills are good enough to do so, and even then, even experts in some area will always have times when they fumble, make mistakes, etc., or have interference beyond their control (e.g., a fly flies close to their nose and they sneeze, wind blows dust in their eyes, etc.). This is why they changed the mechanic with Oblivion and the games that followed. This is why you have even character- and story-focused Japanese RPGs adopting a real-time, player-based combat system. It's why Japanese visual novels and adventure games are a niche market even though they are the closest to true RPGs.

Blame the capitalistic system and market demand, not the companies. People need to look in the mirror to see the problem.

Same problem in Hollywood. You don't see blockbuster special effects movies like "Avengers" winning much in the way of awards but they make a lot of money and set records that way so studios naturally invest in such movies. Business versus art.

User avatar
Mike Plumley
 
Posts: 3392
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:45 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:08 pm

But it's https://www.dropbox.com/s/mhb0u90nucxjrta/Fallout-styled-3d-map.mp4?dl=0. It should have been a given, and planned for FO3 from day one.

Now... With Skyrim as a past example, one can point to its map as trivial for them to implement.

And when they [the industry] do that, it calls for new titles using the IPs ~not [false] sequels.

*As in a new Warhammer 40k game, and not a 'Dawn of War 3' ~pod racing game; followed by 'Dawn of War 4' ~Spacemarine clone, and a 'Dawn of War 5' Halo clone. 'Dawn of War' does not mean anything "Warhammer 40k" themed.

Spoiler
Just as "The Elder Scrolls #" doesn't mean ~anything at all with TES Lore in it. Lets just see TES6 be "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnG_psDSNAw". :chaos:

User avatar
Nienna garcia
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:23 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:23 pm

You are making a lot of baseless assumptions without facts here. TES has always been a first person action game starting with Arena. You had to look at your enemy and swing your weapon to make contact. In Morrowind, you could turn off the RNG and guarantee you'd do your best hit every time you'd attack an opponent. The chance to hit or miss was merely a level of detail to try and add depth to the system, but made little since for what was already a first person action game. TES was never a classic party-based or turn-based RPG.

As far as changing the mechanics, BGS did what made sense and was the most fun. It's why they took out acrobatics, athletics, and many other systems because they were making less and less sense in their games. They went for something more engaging and realistic, which is what their games are about. Immersing the player in this world and making them believe it's real. You don't get that from an arbitrary RNG game or having to level up all your skills just to be able to do anything. Much of these systems just don't make sense anymore.

JRPGs are struggling because nobody wants to play a game with the same features RPGs had twenty years ago. That is why Final Fantasy is tossing out their archaic turn-based system in favor of a real-time action-oriented one in FFXV. Square Enix would be foolish not to. I also should point out that RPGs were not all about numbers purely because that's what developers wanted to do. Some of it was purely a lack of computation power and limitations in hardware. Look at MMORPGs as a perfect example. Stats like block, dodge, parry, and features like auto-attack were in old school MMOs because of poor latency and inadequate game engines.

We now have MMOs such as Tera, ESO, GW2, and ones not released where you can physically block, dodge, parry, or swing your weapon without having to worry about latency. Some RPG developers have wanted to do these things for years but could not because of technology. Now they can. BGS is much in the same line with many of these developers. Games are largely the way they are because of limitations in hardware. There are many more things BGS would love to do with their games, but they can only push as far as consoles allow them to push.

It's simple evolution. Yes, BGS wants to make money and is a business, but they have and continue to make games they'd want to play. That's why their games are so amazing.

User avatar
lucy chadwick
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:43 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:25 pm

Bethesda's developers have described Oblivion's combat as both character-based and player-based. The player is allowed control over actions, such moving, aiming, and attacking. The character's stats control the effectiveness of the actions, and can also determine which actions the player may attempt.

User avatar
Amy Masters
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:26 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:12 am

What impressed me the most about Oblivion was the Acrobatics skill; and not surprisingly, my first (and possibly only) PC for Oblivion, was an acrobat.

Bethesda's idea of "what's fun and sensible" seems to be the systematic expurgation of all RPG aspects, and the implementation what amounts to an RC drone in their game world. :thumbsdown:

User avatar
Jay Baby
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:43 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:05 pm

It was amusing maxing out your acrobatic skill in Morrowind and Oblivion, equipping some light armor, and you'd be dancing around like you were Spider-Man. The problem is the appeal wore off rather quickly and you realized how ridiculous this actually was. My character should never get to a point where he is literally defying the laws of gravity because you apparently spam jumped through the entire game. Some things about TES just didn't make any sense, thus they were taken out.

User avatar
Pumpkin
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:23 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:11 pm

While there is obvious truth to that (in that broader audiences have more potential to more profit), that's still just weaseling out of it - "It wasn't us, it was the industry!" They decide what kind of game they wish to make and how much money they need to invest in making it (and the more they invest, the more market they need to attract to make revenue). Smaller studios have done fine making more niche products (Obsidian, Piranha Bytes, Larian, etc) to this date.

User avatar
Izzy Coleman
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:34 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:32 pm

Basically an alteration mage that would avoids combat and manipulates the environment to escape enemies. Sorry if I was confusing I was tired.

Yes I feel the removal of spell creation limits roleplaying a mage. I don't understand why they removed it they gave a half hearted reason but it was the cornerstone of the system.
User avatar
josie treuberg
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:56 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:19 am

That was what impressed me about it. It's a fantasy setting; and like fantasy settings, it's one of guilds and guarded talents... And the greatest of the [fantasy] acrobats can run across the fallen snow (even as Legolas does in Lord of the Rings)... Or in TES' case sprint across the rivers and ponds like the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45yabrnryXk do.

User avatar
Dawn Porter
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:17 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:20 pm

Ah yes, the bunny hopping simulator...

I recall the deep skills development involved in creeping next to a sleeping person, as well.

I'm pleased that games have improved since those days :cool:

User avatar
xxLindsAffec
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:39 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:27 am

Actually my PC spent the time trying to jump on top of the roofs in the Temple Quarter; and eventually did; eventually made it to the top of the city wall, and could run across it; eventually was able to scale the Arena wall ~too bad the developers left it a facade on the inside. :(

Am I mistaking the intent... are you poking at Bethesda because of a perceived silly design, or is it because I mentioned that I liked it?

There was shockingly little about the game that impressed me ~outside of the graphics, but the Acrobatics skill was among the few things that did. At high level it actually changed animations, to allow somersaults, and reduced fall damage.

User avatar
Lalla Vu
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout 4