4 ms·

Not sure why bring FF4 here, there were many games in the series ;-). Sorry man, stories in old games were MUCH better, the plots were much longer - i don't e

by ergo14 14y ago

Not sure why bring FF4 here, there were many games in the series ;-). Sorry man, stories in old games were MUCH better, the plots were much longer - i don't even have to go to SNES. Fallout New Vegas is a prime example of how a game can play - on same engine - I believe that last good game from Bethesda was Morrowind. And please, seriously Fallout 3 is supposed to have deep story or dialogue? Compared to fallout 1 or 2 it's a very poor attempt (note. I have finished Fallout 3 and New Vegas). Also character customization has litte to do with game depth - i could still argue that few Final Fantasy games had way more customization. Hell even bethesda's Daggerfall was way more customizable than Fallout 3 - also Fallouts 3 story is a very small main quest on rails as you have put it. It's really weak compared to New Vegas - I bring this reference multiple times to show you how bad fallout 3 is compared to New Vegas on same engine. The attitude you present here is precisely the reason why developers want to use kickstarter to fund their games compared to publishers - they have the same worries about how games are. Also you raised some interesting points: - What's that, an entire kingdom capital has 6 single story buildings and a castle with 10 rooms? - Most of the NPC's have 1-2 lines of dialogue with NO interaction with the PC? Agreed, but i fail to see how abundance of dialogue options are supposed to make up for good gameplay? - it is in reality a lot more complicated. Bethesda style sandbox games got really dumbed down - the plenthora of options is really a meaningless facade. Take mass effect as an example - its a shooter with fairly linear gameplay (although it manages to hide this fact well), but it tells a really really good story - It is not a sandbox game by any means but its really good - because it managed to deliver great experience overall. This is what old games did really well, they delivered massive gameplay - and this has nothing to do with graphics, choice options - its the experience that counts - and for me personally Fallout 3 was a very poor experience - your story might be different obviously.

mattmanser 14y ago
Having variable story choices is not the sole part of gameplay. Being a sandbox is not the sole part of gameplay. Having a great combat system is not the sole part of gameplay. Having AAA graphics, having many side missions, having complex locations, having complex characters, having lots of different combat styles, having stealth, having character growth, etc., etc. Gameplay is made up of all those things and you're taking one tiny part of what makes it up and calling FO3 terrible because you didn't like its gameplay mix. It's without a doubt one of the greatest games of the last 5 years. It's just that you don't like it. Personally I found NV tediously linear. It's a big loop that you go from start town and follow the road round to the dam. Every part of the main story was 'urgent'. End of exploring. Add to that I never felt any attachment to the courier. To me NV had very few unique large locations and was unfinished. Camp McCarran, Caesar's camp, Forlorn Hope, the casinos and the Nellis AFB all felt characterless and empty, as if they'd meant to put a lot more effort into them but hadn't had time so just filled them with unscripted NPCs. Even Novac needed more character. There were so, so many NPCs that were just nobodies. The arena was a total waste of space, a great concept that hadn't been fleshed out. Conversely I thought FO3 was amazing, you had to roam all over the map. It felt as if you should set up in certain locations for a while, so you got to know them. Every place was packed with unique NPCs and there were practically no areas just crammed with 'anonymous' NPCs apart from areas you'd actually expect them not to talk to you like the BoS compound. You got a house. There was no constant urgency to follow the main mission until the late stages. I loved it. I like being told a story as I play and having too many choices means the story and characters inevitably become extremely shallow, to me, the NV story was shallow. So based on two totally different aspects of game play we have two totally different opinions. I still enjoyed NV. It was just very shallow and didn't give me the wasteland survivor vibe that FO3, imo, did so well.
- ergo14 14y ago
  Yes it all boils down to peronal taste. But i would try to restrain myself from statements like "one of best games of last 5 years", because clearly most of "fallout folks" that liked fo1 and 2 just didnt like it - so clearly you are the target audient - I am not. Also, there were a lot more interesting quests in New Vegas - and more side quests in general - maybe you didnt explore the game enough ;-) Then again nothing beats Vampire:Bloodlines which is one of best examples of how a modern RPG could look like. And back on original topic - this is what some of kickstarter games are about - made for an audience like me :-)
criley 14y ago
When I think about depth, I think about things like: finding people to talk to. Side quests. Fleshing out cities and industries. I think about a deep world -- something SNES games almost never gave. I think about exploration and emergant gameplay, something SNES games almost never gave. I suppose if your definition of depth is purely story based and can be fulfilled through a linear, one-story-fits-all game, then those SNES games can be deep.
- illuminate 14y ago
  There's also a lot of nostalgia based on the options available, and our expectations were much, much less. If we'd been given the option to play both, Fallout 3 would have been considered the more "immersive" experience without question.
- timwiseman 14y ago
  It seems there is a disagreement as to what constitutes depth. If you want a "Sandbox" then most old-school RPGs will feel very shallow. You have numerous choices, but exploration and interaction outside those choices is limited. On the other hand, if you want control over the story, many sandbox style games will feel shallow. Batman: Arkham City gave you a great sandbox with tons of things to discover and the story was fantastic. But your control over the story was minimal, limited to pretty much whether to do a side mission or not. You had absolutely no choices that affected the core story at all. Infamous 2 was similar. You had a lot of area to explore and interesting side missions, but you had only about 3 real choices and they lead to only 2 endings. The story was deep, the sandbox was wide, but your control was minimal. I think there are great games on both ends (and in the middle) of this spectrum, but "sandbox depth (or width)" is very different from "story control depth".

by ergo14 14y ago

mattmanser 14y ago

Having variable story choices is not the sole part of gameplay. Being a sandbox is not the sole part of gameplay. Having a great combat system is not the sole part of gameplay. Having AAA graphics, having many side missions, having complex locations, having complex characters, having lots of different combat styles, having stealth, having character growth, etc., etc. Gameplay is made up of all those things and you're taking one tiny part of what makes it up and calling FO3 terrible because you didn't like its gameplay mix. It's without a doubt one of the greatest games of the last 5 years. It's just that you don't like it. Personally I found NV tediously linear. It's a big loop that you go from start town and follow the road round to the dam. Every part of the main story was 'urgent'. End of exploring. Add to that I never felt any attachment to the courier. To me NV had very few unique large locations and was unfinished. Camp McCarran, Caesar's camp, Forlorn Hope, the casinos and the Nellis AFB all felt characterless and empty, as if they'd meant to put a lot more effort into them but hadn't had time so just filled them with unscripted NPCs. Even Novac needed more character. There were so, so many NPCs that were just nobodies. The arena was a total waste of space, a great concept that hadn't been fleshed out. Conversely I thought FO3 was amazing, you had to roam all over the map. It felt as if you should set up in certain locations for a while, so you got to know them. Every place was packed with unique NPCs and there were practically no areas just crammed with 'anonymous' NPCs apart from areas you'd actually expect them not to talk to you like the BoS compound. You got a house. There was no constant urgency to follow the main mission until the late stages. I loved it. I like being told a story as I play and having too many choices means the story and characters inevitably become extremely shallow, to me, the NV story was shallow. So based on two totally different aspects of game play we have two totally different opinions. I still enjoyed NV. It was just very shallow and didn't give me the wasteland survivor vibe that FO3, imo, did so well.

ergo14 14y ago
Yes it all boils down to peronal taste. But i would try to restrain myself from statements like "one of best games of last 5 years", because clearly most of "fallout folks" that liked fo1 and 2 just didnt like it - so clearly you are the target audient - I am not. Also, there were a lot more interesting quests in New Vegas - and more side quests in general - maybe you didnt explore the game enough ;-) Then again nothing beats Vampire:Bloodlines which is one of best examples of how a modern RPG could look like. And back on original topic - this is what some of kickstarter games are about - made for an audience like me :-)

criley 14y ago

When I think about depth, I think about things like: finding people to talk to. Side quests. Fleshing out cities and industries. I think about a deep world -- something SNES games almost never gave. I think about exploration and emergant gameplay, something SNES games almost never gave. I suppose if your definition of depth is purely story based and can be fulfilled through a linear, one-story-fits-all game, then those SNES games can be deep.

illuminate 14y ago
There's also a lot of nostalgia based on the options available, and our expectations were much, much less. If we'd been given the option to play both, Fallout 3 would have been considered the more "immersive" experience without question.
timwiseman 14y ago
It seems there is a disagreement as to what constitutes depth. If you want a "Sandbox" then most old-school RPGs will feel very shallow. You have numerous choices, but exploration and interaction outside those choices is limited. On the other hand, if you want control over the story, many sandbox style games will feel shallow. Batman: Arkham City gave you a great sandbox with tons of things to discover and the story was fantastic. But your control over the story was minimal, limited to pretty much whether to do a side mission or not. You had absolutely no choices that affected the core story at all. Infamous 2 was similar. You had a lot of area to explore and interesting side missions, but you had only about 3 real choices and they lead to only 2 endings. The story was deep, the sandbox was wide, but your control was minimal. I think there are great games on both ends (and in the middle) of this spectrum, but "sandbox depth (or width)" is very different from "story control depth".