• 26 Posts
  • 539 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle


  • Ah, I see. You’d want more diversity or substance to the dungeons, not length, or puzzles.

    Would you exchange it for less dungeons? I mean, smaller number of them, but each distinctive?

    And if so, how would you predict it’d change the dynamics of the game? Because now dungeons are pretty much “loot trips”, or locations required to solve some quests only. You know, "Oh, I need me some good weaponry, I’m gonna raid a few tombs and see where it’s going to get me.

    (Asking as a worldbuilder).



  • I honestly don’t get it.

    What we’re seeing in Bethesda’s design are more and more vibrant worlds - modern NPCs walk around, sit on whatever benches they see, react to day/night cycles, use the objects around them, comment on how you’re looking, what you’re wearing (or not), hear about your exploits. Not every NPC is ready to break to you his sad story worth a doctorate in psychology, but which one does?

    Even in games one may consider deep you will still find shopkeepers with same lines, or NPCs standing there, in the same spot, no matter whether it rains or not, ready to give you what is essentially a FedEx quest, no matter how many sentences they are going to express it with. You can break a fight in many deep games, and nobody around will mind it - attack a villager in Skyrim and guards and other denizens won’t take this shit kindly.

    Heck, the lore is vast, even since Daggerfall or Morrowind you had in-game books to find and read, stories to pursue, myths and legends to learn.

    The style, the tone, the predictability are things that definitely might use more attention, but I definitely wouldn’t call it a shallow design.



  • Yet your argument still ignores all nuance. (…)

    There are no nuances needed to be acknowledged in this specific distinction. People playing in good faith, WILL try to overcome any obstacles according to their experience, skills and maturity. People who don’t, will invent problems and actively search for them rather than focus on solutions. Neither needs Session #0.

    good group doesn’t need session zero and bad group isn’t helped by it

    It’s absolutely wrong take on the dillema. GOOD group doesn’t have to play in good faith - they are good players, experienced veterans, that know the art of role playing well. But they don’t have to put all their skills into good outcome. They may, for many reasons try to undermine the experience, break the game, test the ruleset for weaknesses, focus on one singe aspect of the game (for example, on combat) rather than on the whole adventure. And the other way around - bad gamers, clueless and inexperienced might still try to save their game, make the best of it.

    As you can see, what you’re discussing is wildly different to what I’ve been talking about.

    Now you’re just doing some pedantic backpedaling, as though it changes the fact that your argument hinges on a false binary.

    From where I sit - it’s you who didn’t think through your position and when asked about details became passively-aggressive. Usually a strong hint that you feel you’re/were wrong.

    And it’s ironic that you simultaneously accuse me of lacking nuances and simultaneously of being “too nuanced”. 😬







  • I don’t get that “shallow” part.

    In Bethesda’s worlds there’s always something going on, something new to discover, something new to learn… Providing you put an effort to pursue that. These games don’t force themselves upon the player, they leave helluva room for breathing, caring about whatever small goals you may set upon yourself, but that’s not “bad”, isn’t it?