What is appeal of this series? What is appeal of this game studio, because fallout 3 and new vegas seemed similar to me

What is appeal of this series? What is appeal of this game studio, because fallout 3 and new vegas seemed similar to me.

Combat is done better in many games. Exploration is done better in adventure games.(usually linear)
Simulation of world is done better in simulation games.(ok nevermind this one).
Gameplay and balance is done better in a pletora of games.


Customization of characters and "lore"? And by lore, I mean quite verbose texts of made religions, politics, plants, animals etc. , but without the spice of humor and intelligence.

Is this the epitome of replacing your real life with artificial one, and imagining you are someone else? I know some people who play it, but they just say "the game is good and its open world".

Other urls found in this thread:

en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:36_Lessons_of_Vivec,_Sermon_6
youtube.com/watch?v=A-chDClmdos&t=1s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>And by lore, I mean quite verbose texts of made religions, politics, plants, animals etc. , but without the spice of humor and intelligence.

It was supposed to be "and dialogues,but without the spice of humor and intelligence." Sorry, my bad.

And also, roleplaying as in dialogues and story(not dollhouse and racism customization) is done in a variety of other rpgs

>Exploration is done better in adventure games.
Adventure games? They have barely any exploration going for them. Just a bunch of small areas to house the puzzles that the game revolves around solving. Or do you mean action adventure like Legend of Zelda or... well, Skyrim?

Also
>Exploration is done better (usually linear)
Huh? If a game world is too linear there is almost zero exploration. Could you give some specific examples, because I think our definitions of a couple of terms are too different for me to understand what you mean.

>Huh? If a game world is too linear there is almost zero exploration.
When you don't know what's next, what is this process called? Is it not exploration?

> because I think our definitions of a couple of terms are too different for me to understand what you mean.
Which ones exactly?

>and imagining you are someone else?
Congratulations, you figured out the point of a fucking ROLE PLAYING GAME

>Congratulations, you figured out the point of a fucking ROLE PLAYING GAME
Then is Sims role playing game?

>Then is Sims role playing game?
No, it's a casual social simulator

But you play roles in it. You just don't get to kill stuff.

What's a hardcore social simulator?

Dwarf Fortress

Porn mod

>quite verbose texts of made religions, politics, plants, animals
Something like this?
en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:36_Lessons_of_Vivec,_Sermon_6

>Congratulations, you figured out the point of a fucking ROLE PLAYING GAME
So I guess the selling point of Bethseda games is time, because you can play a role for longer than in most games.

>en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:36_Lessons_of_Vivec,_Sermon_6
I don't know, you tell me.

>What is appeal of this series?
You get a large pretty land to explore and fuck around in.

Still mad they dropped the ball with the lame quests in Skyrim, if they had fixed that and put spell creation back in, it would have been the game of the series.

>Still mad they dropped the ball with the lame quests in Skyrim
How are quests different in Bethseda games? It's always hunt somebody, find something etc.

>Congratulations, you figured out the point of a fucking ROLE PLAYING GAME
What's the point of ROLE PLAYING, without substance? If there is only roles, but no playing? I have better roleplaying in my work.

And better roleplaying in paper dnd, because some game masters actually make captivating story.

>How are quests different in Bethseda games? It's always hunt somebody, find something etc.
Skyrim has radiant quests which are just awful in any game. There are also fewer guild quests and quests in general are just blander and more samey than they were in previous games.

What if you're roleplaying an adventurer?
I'm not really defending Skyrim, but it's an old game already give it a break honestly. It just gives you a feeling of an adventure and quests are passable.

>Skyrim has radiant quests which are just awful in any game.
I've just read definition, seems more repetetive than MMORPG gameplay.

Linear for one, I would consider a game world that is a straight line like FF13 to have zero exploration, or FF10 to have barely any. You're not exploring if you are merely being led along.

And the other term of course is 'adventure game', because again how can they do exploration well if they're just a bunch of tiny areas full of puzzles? I therefore assume OP is operating off different definitions of these terms.

>What if you're roleplaying an adventurer?
Then you buy travels.Or read books. Just kidding.
But returning to games:
You can play ~10 adventure games in the time of completing TES game. Any game really. Different roles. What is a role really? Most games have roles of adventurer. You explore different worlds. In Bethseda games its just watered down. I'ts like reading books with lorem ispum or gibberish inside.

Yes, different than yours I think. I define exploration as growth of knowledge about artificial (in this context) world, in given time. How it is done is irrelevant, neither good or bad, but just irrelevant of the term "exploration".

>You can play ~10 adventure games in the time of completing TES game. Any game really.
>comparing books to games
Really

Now, about how the "exploration" is done, in my opinion. It can be a straight line, or a collection of combinations of straight lines. Witcher 3 does the latter better than Bethseda games, becouse it actually has some gameplay. As for the choice of exploration type, or hybrid of both, is a matter of personal preferences.

I didn't understand your post, sorry.

>I'm not really defending Skyrim, but it's an old game already give it a break honestly. It just gives you a feeling of an adventure and quests are passable.

I think it's a matter of particular mindset of the devs/market target and not age of the game( end of 2011). The next one in the line will be smiliar, most probably. It's always passable and with hundreads of hours that you can throw into if you are bored.

My appeal to The Elder Scrolls is the incredibly deep and creative lore. I know nearly all of it that there is to know as of today. It's amazing.

Thanks for sharing. But aren't fantasy books more interesting? Was wondering, as I do not know anybody that reads this genre besides Witcher or Tolkien.

>Exploration is done better in adventure games.(usually linear)

What the fuck did he mean by this?

>Is this the epitome of replacing your real life with artificial one, and imagining you are someone else?
Yeah it's called roleplaying, look it up.

read the thread before posting

It's insane how huge of a chunk of Tamriel Oblivion is supposed to cover.

I was hired to lead, not to read.

>Exploration is done better in adventure games
but then they're not RPGs(or whatever you'd call elder scrolls depth and pacing) Its a golden goose genre combination. Literally anyone else using the same formula with the same resources would make a far better game.

Hell no. I haven't seen anything as deep as TES lore and I used to read a bunch back in middle school and high school. TES lore is super good. There's videos about it on Youtube and those don't even cover the entire thing in full detail.

Start with this video. ShoddyCast has a pretty lengthy series on the lore for TES that should give you a good understanding of the base universe. There's also more information for each one of these videos that he doesn't cover in this series. The creation of the entire universe as a whole also has its own lore which he doesn't cover here either, but in a different video (which also is not fully detailed).
youtube.com/watch?v=A-chDClmdos&t=1s

How is it that Elder Scrolls ended up turning so deep? How did this all come about?

> Its a golden goose genre combination. Literally anyone else using the same formula with the same resources would make a far better game.
But nobody makes, since AAA games are sparse and costly nowadays, so they kinda monopolized a sweet spot in its somewhat specific target?

I'm not entirely sure how to answer that other than pointing you out towards Michael Kirkbride. He pretty much wrote most of the lore for the games. It's always been in them since Daggerfall, but people usually don't read the books in the games.

So what is it about this Kirkbride fellow that makes his ideas stand out from all the other fantasy stories created? And why did that writing end up in a series of videogames rather than actual novels?

>Skyrim belongs to the No......

>le 42% face

mods

As far as I understand, Bethesda's idea of an immersive world is to include all trustworthy lore in the games themselves. Even characters in the games have limited knowledge in said world and their dialogue about lore contradicts each other to give you the sense that they know as much about their lore as we know about ours.
Why his ideas stand out? Well, you would have to go read the lore to find out.

If you can tell me what books have gods raping one another, mad crusaders butchering elves, people living in crabs, Willy Wonka and the Mad Realm, a dude crying the blood of a creation god and making it an axe, and a bunch of shit like that then please tell me.

You'll find a great deal of fantasy is derivative of Tolkien and not all that interesting.
Try Malazan, that's as close as you'll get.

>Try Malazan, that's as close as you'll get.
Will do. Actually kind of weird a guy on steam I talk too about ES stuff recommended that to me once.

In that case Call of Duty has a ton of exploration despite basically being nothing but a one way hallway

Bleh meant to quote the guy you were quoting

Maybe you should get out and come back when you've got a basic grasp of English you subhuman foreign fuck nugget

Well there are reasons for that. Be warned: it is not light reading, you really need to pay attention and infer lots of shit early on.