What video games have you been playing V: the return of the subtitle

[Tahuti]

If CD Project had to accommodate a Geralt who could range from moralistic do-gooder to a bloodthirsty sociopath they would be defaulting to pretty generic dialogue. Plus, plot-wise the Witcher games are linear. I mean, could you imagine the headaches CD Project would have had if they tried to make Witcher 2 non-linear?

That's quite possibly the genius of the Witcher series: Geralt definitely has personality, though he still makes you wonder whether he is a do-gooder, a Clint Eastwood-esque antihero or a psychopath all the time.

Players wandering between Flotsam, Vergen, the Army Camp without following the story path would be basically impossible to code.

It is not just a matter of coding, it is a matter of design in particular. Programming may be the rarest skill to have as an individual in a game development corps (AAA studios like CD Projekt are essentially such) though on an organisational level, it is quite easy: You have fewer programmers to manage than you have to manage artists. Most postponements in regard to release often have to do with art and level design in particular: Stuff like getting stuck in missions for no reason are more likely the work of a lazy level designer than a lazy programmer, although of course, programmers usually get the flak.

 

[Akka]

Part of it comes from nobody else making open world RPGs, and those that do tend to really struggle with populating the world (*cough* Witcher 3 *cough*). The other part comes from Bethesda -despite a lot of butthurt people on the internet arguing to the contrary- still makes excellent games that do a good job of drawing you into the world. For myself, my biggest criticism of Bethesda with Fallout 4 is that it feels sort of lazy. (Although I'm shocked they actually managed to make a fun and response combat system.) Apart from the gimmicky crafting/village system nothing new is really added to the series.


I wouldn't say Witcher 3 completely annihilates it. I'm a huge fan of the Witcher and feel it is a better game than Skyrim, but let's keep the respective games in mind. The Witcher has you begin as a set character with a pre-established motivation, personality, empty world, and basically linear plot. One of the key selling points with Bethesda RPGs is that there is no pre-defined character, motivations, or personality. If CD Project had to accommodate a Geralt who could range from moralistic do-gooder to a bloodthirsty sociopath they would be defaulting to pretty generic dialogue. Plus, plot-wise the Witcher games are linear. I mean, could you imagine the headaches CD Project would have had if they tried to make Witcher 2 non-linear? Players wandering between Flotsam, Vergen, the Army Camp without following the story path would be basically impossible to code.
Lastly, outside of the quest locations the Witcher 3 is pretty empty and is basically just pretty filler. Beyond occasionally wanting to look at the scenery I never just wandered off into the wilderness. If I were to wander off to their "points of interest" all I would find really are some bandit camps or monster dens that would give me some paltry experience and crafting loot I already had 20 copies of shoved into Geralt's Bag of Holding.

Witcher 3's story isn't any more linear than Skyrim one. In fact, it's actually much LESS. As for the "empty world", I feel like we didn't played the same games. Skyrim has a bit more random encounters, but there is quite a bit less actual content points and not really more quests to do or NPC to encounter. It certainly disguise better by allowing you to talk with everyone and get more than a one-liner, but the amount of actual characters with lines is probably equal, if not in Witcher's advantage.

 

[Arakhor]

Having been using Vienna's U-bahn of late, I have new appreciation for the subway systems in Fallout 3, which are already probably some of the better parts of that game anyway.

 

[dusters]

League of Legends. IF anyone wants to play with me on Europe WEST, pls PM! I'm approx Gold 4 on a good day and approx Platinium on my best days.

 

[Phrossack]

Having been using Vienna's U-bahn of late, I have new appreciation for the subway systems in Fallout 3, which are already probably some of the better parts of that game anyway.

I don't remember much of FO3, since Obsidian beat Bethesda at their own game with NV, but I did quite like the subway system.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't remember much of FO3, since Obsidian beat Bethesda at their own game with NV, but I did quite like the subway system.

I suppose creating a buggy mess filled with cardboard characters, bad villains, and a potato for a graphics engine could be construed at beating Bethesda at their own game, although probably not in the way you intended.

I seriously don't get this nerd-boner the internet has for Obsidian. Pillars of Eternity showed they have no idea how to design an RPG and are simply a CRPG cargo cult. An impenetrable combat, a bunch of mental asylum escapees for party members*, terribly created party members (one tank, seriously?), way too much fake Welsh in names, a creaky plot held together with tropes, and dull quests. Everything about the game was overly serious and depressing. Bioware and CD Project know how to inject some funny moments into the game. CD Project got a couple of great lines about how Geralt would make a merchant "feel the invisible hand of the market" unless the merchant paid up.
* The only party members I liked were Eder and the ranger, and ever Eder needed some Prozac.

When I compare Pillars of Eternity to Avernum or Avadon PoE comes up short every time.
Avernum/Avadon have a fun and intuitive combat system, excellent world and quest design/presentation, a great sense of accomplishment*, neat characters (such as Erika Redmark, Patrick Padraig, Motrax, and Miranda), and party members I actually like (Khalida, Yannick, and the Shadowwalker in Avadon 3 I'm blanking on).
*The thrill and sense of triumph I got in Avernum 2 when I wrestled the Sword of Fine from a Haakai Lord has been matched in few games.

 

[Phrossack]

I suppose creating a buggy mess filled with cardboard characters, bad villains, and a potato for a graphics engine could be construed at beating Bethesda at their own game, although probably not in the way you intended.

I seriously don't get this nerd-boner the internet has for Obsidian. Pillars of Eternity showed they have no idea how to design an RPG and are simply a CRPG cargo cult. An impenetrable combat, a bunch of mental asylum escapees for party members*, terribly created party members (one tank, seriously?), way too much fake Welsh in names, a creaky plot held together with tropes, and dull quests. Everything about the game was overly serious and depressing. Bioware and CD Project know how to inject some funny moments into the game. CD Project got a couple of great lines about how Geralt would make a merchant "feel the invisible hand of the market" unless the merchant paid up.
* The only party members I liked were Eder and the ranger, and ever Eder needed some Prozac.

When I compare Pillars of Eternity to Avernum or Avadon PoE comes up short every time.
Avernum/Avadon have a fun and intuitive combat system, excellent world and quest design/presentation, a great sense of accomplishment*, neat characters (such as Erika Redmark, Patrick Padraig, Motrax, and Miranda), and party members I actually like (Khalida, Yannick, and the Shadowwalker in Avadon 3 I'm blanking on).
*The thrill and sense of triumph I got in Avernum 2 when I wrestled the Sword of Fine from a Haakai Lord has been matched in few games.

I can't comment on other Obsidian games, as NV is the only one I've played, but I meant that New Vegas took everything FO3 had and made it better. Better companion interface, better plot, better variety of options for quests, better crafting system, better companion backstories and quests, better DLC (let's forget Point Lookout and Mothership Zeta), a better armor and weapon system...there's no real area of FO3 that's better than New Vegas.

Characters in New Vegas, like Caesar, Veronica, and Joshua Graham, certainly weren't cardboard, especially not compared to FO3. There are very, very few characters from FO3 who stick out in my mind, since they were almost all completely bland and wooden. Companions included a ghoul assassin nobody, a failed FEV experiment with some backstory, a Knight-Paladin-Justicar-Crusader-Whatever with no personality, a high school bully, and not much else. Followers had no quests and little backstory.

New Vegas had a sniper struggling to come to terms with his wife's death and his role in a possible war crime, a cyborg dog in need of a brain transplant, a schizophrenic Super Mutant, a bookish doctor hiding family ties to a fascist organization, a young woman trying to choose between her people who are driving themselves to destruction and her own lonely path, a Mexican ghoul mechanic with the personality of Tolni and the voice of Danny Trejo, a Mormon missionary-turned-interpreter-turned-warlord-turned-warlord seeking redemption in his own badass way...hell, the robot ED-E alone has more personality than all of FO3's companions put together.

The next Bethesda title with the engine, Skyrim, did not make use of these improvements. Much as I love it, it was a return to FO3's boring and choiceless plot, completely flat and interchangeable followers, and an inferior weapon and armor system.

 

[Commodore]

there's no real area of FO3 that's better than New Vegas.

Except for the one thing that matters most (at least to me): the setting. New Vegas did a terrible job of making me feel like I was in a post-nuclear wasteland and just felt like a spaghetti western with some mutants and futuristic guns strewn about. Fallout 3 on the other hand, really felt like a post-nuclear wasteland with human settlements that were struggling to survive.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Fallout 3 had a gun that launched physics objects

 

[Akka]

Except for the one thing that matters most (at least to me): the setting. New Vegas did a terrible job of making me feel like I was in a post-nuclear wasteland and just felt like a spaghetti western with some mutants and futuristic guns strewn about. Fallout 3 on the other hand, really felt like a post-nuclear wasteland with human settlements that were struggling to survive.

Yes and no.
FO3 did a great job at making a "bombs just dropped" settings.
Problem is, the war was supposed to have ended about 200 years ago. It made it hard to suspend believability when entering blown up buildings with lights still flashing, two centuries after everything went dark.

New Vegas is much more consistent : it's no more "post-nuclear wasteland", it's "world rebuilding itself". The nuclear wasteland was FO1, decades before. FO2 was already communities rebuilding themselves, and NV is the continuation, with entire states rising out of the rubble and trying to take the new world over.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yes and no.
FO3 did a great job at making a "bombs just dropped" settings.
Problem is, the war was supposed to have ended about 200 years ago. It made it hard to suspend believability when entering blown up buildings with lights still flashing, two centuries after everything went dark.

New Vegas is much more consistent : it's no more "post-nuclear wasteland", it's "world rebuilding itself". The nuclear wasteland was FO1, decades before. FO2 was already communities rebuilding themselves, and NV is the continuation, with entire states rising out of the rubble and trying to take the new world over.

I agree about the 200 years thing. I just pretend it's 20 years, and the extra zero was a typo. Aside from that, I agree with Commodore about the settings of the two games. I thought New Vegas' setting was pretty bland.

 

[Commodore]

Yes and no.
FO3 did a great job at making a "bombs just dropped" settings.
Problem is, the war was supposed to have ended about 200 years ago. It made it hard to suspend believability when entering blown up buildings with lights still flashing, two centuries after everything went dark.

New Vegas is much more consistent : it's no more "post-nuclear wasteland", it's "world rebuilding itself". The nuclear wasteland was FO1, decades before. FO2 was already communities rebuilding themselves, and NV is the continuation, with entire states rising out of the rubble and trying to take the new world over.

Sure, but that's not what people want to see when you bill your franchise as a "post-nuclear RPG". When you make nuclear apocalypse the central theme of your series, people expect to see the "bombs just dropped" look even if it's set 1,000 years after the war. Bethesda understands this, Obsidian does not.

There are also in-universe explanations for why lights are still flashing and food is still edible 200 years after the bombs fell. Long story short, the energy and resource shortages before the war led to some pretty amazing advances in technology that allowed for things to function for hundreds of years with minimal maintenance or upkeep. That's why robots are still walking around 200 years after the bombs fell.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I agree, the reason 200 years seems like too long isn't because of the technology. It all runs on magical, pocket-sized fusion cores. The problem for me is how shabby everything is. People would have made much more progress after 200 years. In places that people didn't rebuild, the buildings would be unrecognizable heaps covered in vegetation.

 

[Phrossack]

Yeah, it's like nobody even tries to rebuild after two centuries in DC. I found that hard to believe, and got the impression that Bethesda really didn't understand Fallout and just made a checklist of things to include that they thought belonged in Fallout.

Super Mutants, even though they're from the West Coast? Check. The Brotherhood, even though they're from the West Coast? Check. The Enclave, despite the same thing? Check. Going completely overboard with '50s Americana, even though that wasn't nearly as prevalent in 1 and 2? Sure, why not? If they had kept thinking like that, they would have put Caesar's Legion in FO4, which wouldn't have made any sense, but thankfully they didn't.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I've been told that the Fallout fan base is the worst fan base, even worse than the Star Wars one, simply because of how divisive they are when it comes to the games.

 

[Leonel]

Aside from Civ 6 naturally, I exhausted my Battlefield 1 trial. It's really fun and a nice change from the usual modern warfare themed games. Plus it reminds me of the olden days of Battlefield 1942 when the Battlefield 1918 mod was out. I'll be getting it next paycheck for sure.

 

[Commodore]

The Enclave, despite the same thing? Check.

That's actually not true. It was always stated that the Oil Rig and Navarro were considered the main Enclave headquarters, but were by no means their only holdings. The Enclave was rumored to have bases not only all over the US, but around the world as well. So you could set a Fallout game just about anywhere and still have the Enclave show up and it would still make sense within the established lore.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I agree, the reason 200 years seems like too long isn't because of the technology. It all runs on magical, pocket-sized fusion cores. The problem for me is how shabby everything is. People would have made much more progress after 200 years. In places that people didn't rebuild, the buildings would be unrecognizable heaps covered in vegetation.

Thats something a synth would say !

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

A lot of Civilization VI, which is pretty cool, although as always there are some things that I look forward to mods improving and tweaking, mostly in regards to AI agenda strengths and builder strats. Oh and some UI things. Still, almost 20 hours put in so far and on my 2nd game, I like it.

Dota 2. Into it again. I will undoubtedly love it (as I do now) until I run into a bunch of *******s, at which point I will quit for awhile, only to come back eventually after convincing myself it's all worth it.

 

[Ajidica]

I can't comment on other Obsidian games, as NV is the only one I've played, but I meant that New Vegas took everything FO3 had and made it better. Better companion interface, better plot, better variety of options for quests, better crafting system, better companion backstories and quests, better DLC (let's forget Point Lookout and Mothership Zeta), a better armor and weapon system...there's no real area of FO3 that's better than New Vegas.

I won't deny that NV had a better combat system that F3 and better integration of companions into the game, but I have to disagree on the better plot, quest options, and DLC.
For quest options, NV constantly ran into the same issue with the companion quests - the triggers were all buggy or unintuitive. My first playthrough I brought Boone with me everywhere but I never triggered his quest because I visited his locations in the wrong order and the quest bugged out on me. For Veronica, her quest wasn't triggering so I had to check the wiki for instructions for how to trigger it. For the trader lady you meet at the border post, I've never figured out how to trigger her quest. And the ghoul person is stuck in a location I have no incentive to go to and old get around to going to late game when he is outclassed as a companion. A dinky little pistol and some repair skills won't help when fighting Legionaires with thermal lances and marksman carbines.

Yeah, it's like nobody even tries to rebuild after two centuries in DC. I found that hard to believe, and got the impression that Bethesda really didn't understand Fallout and just made a checklist of things to include that they thought belonged in Fallout.

I don't think you are getting just how catastrophic the War was in Fallout. Look at our own history when societal organizations break down. Following the breakup of the Roman Empire, it took another 1000 years before we saw any Western European state begin to approach the wealth and organizational capacity of the Roman Empire. Sheba never really recovered from the destruction of the Marib Dam, and one can make a strong argument that the Mongol invasions and Tamburlane's penchant for skull pyramids permanently wrecked Central Asia. If these societies took so long to recover, why should you be surprised at how long the recovery is for a society recovering from total thermonuclear Armageddon?
Plus, a major thing in Fallout is how the earth's natural resources were exhausted. When society tries to rebuilt, they are going to be permanently be stuck scavenging until they can leap over the industrial revolution into the modern day. Coal has been mined out, oil is virtually non-existent (which is why I find the generators in F4 so stupid, but whatever), and any sort of technology would have to be scavenged from the ruins of cities. If you have ever read Ringworld, it is like what happened to the City Builders. There are no natural resources on Ringworld so once civilization fell it would never rise again.
Why do you think the world would be in a better condition?

Super Mutants, even though they're from the West Coast? Check. The Brotherhood, even though they're from the West Coast? Check. The Enclave, despite the same thing? Check. Going completely overboard with '50s Americana, even though that wasn't nearly as prevalent in 1 and 2? Sure, why not? If they had kept thinking like that, they would have put Caesar's Legion in FO4, which wouldn't have made any sense, but thankfully they didn't.

That god Bethesda had the good sense not to include the jocks-from-hell. Caesar's Legion was easily the stupidest thing to come out of NV, and that is saying something.