|
Glad I'm not the only one that was pretty underwhelmed by the trailer footage. I knew it was probably pointless, but I was hoping a little that they'd take this opportunity to innovate on the Bethesda standard game and graphical design, but... Nah. It at least looks like a modern game unlike the muddy mess of FO4, and it does seem like they improved the animation somewhat (although they're still nowhere near CDR's level there), but the gameplay... Same poo poo, different setting. They were really struggling to make that gunplay segment look fun and not succeeding. Are they seriously still using that creaky old engine? Jeezus. Just drop it and go Unreal already.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:The character model quality, and customization, is basically the same as Fallout 4. Disappointing, because Fallout 4 is so dated and never really looked good. Bethesda has always had big problems with character models. I'm glad to see they at least figured out how to do combat animations that don't look like everyone has a stick up their butt. Doesn't mean it looks very good, but it's better. It's sad they're trying to go the Doom 2016 route with the combat (or at least trying to pitch it that way in the trailer). I think it would work a lot better if they leaned into the slow, tactical style, ala Deus Ex - more reliant on stealth, gadgets, and skills than pure gunplay and mobility.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:The more I think about the presentation yesterday, the biggest red flag for me, and probably a lot of people, is when they showed the size of a single planet, and it had just one single landmark location. The excitement would be much higher if the planet map had been filled with landmarks and other markers with things to see and do. The optimist in me wants to believe that this stuff is just filled in as you play and explore a planet. Yeah that's pretty much the Outer Worlds issue. The IDEA of the game being full of cool new planets to explore is a good one, but not that great when each world is a pretty limited area with only 2-3 notable things to do, all of which are within a very short jogging distance. But if you make the worlds bigger, you're not really fixing the problem, you're just introducing a new one - everything is too sparse now, and now it's the explorable planets from Mass Effect 1. A happy medium is tough to hit when you're talking games dependent on story and hand built locations. Fully procedurally generated games like Minecraft and Valheim (and, well, No Man's Sky, after content updates) can get away with it, because the game IS the exploration and building, but that's not gonna fly here. Honestly, the idea of having 100s of worlds to explore doesn't really excite me. Just give me 3-5 REALLY detailed worlds with tons to do and explore. A game with 3 worlds, each as filled with content as 1/3 of Skyrim, would be a grand slam. Edit: I just realized we already HAVE this, lol. Witcher 3 (with expansions) has 3 jam-packed "worlds" - Velen/Novigrad, Skellige, and Toussaint (not even counting the White Orchard tutorial area, which has as much content as some entire games I've played). Man, Witcher 3 really did set too a high bar for open world RPGs. I did think of a good happy medium for having a bunch of worlds, though - Dragon Age Inquisition did pretty well. I think it had over a dozen rather expansive areas that had a good amount of side content in addition to the main questline. But that said, Mass Effect Andromeda attempted the same design, but it failed there in large part due to being too spread out. I did actually enjoy the planets where you didn't have a vehicle, though. Rotten Red Rod fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 13, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Was "not enough space" ever really a problem for Skyrim modders? Most mods were made to interact with the existing content, and those who did need lots of space usually just... Made their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 18:51
|
|