I had no idea Todd Howard told Peter Molyneux-esque whoppers

Over 200 endings? Infinity quests? And wtfh was Radiant AI?!

I thought the biggest issues with Fallout and Skyrim (I loved F3 and Skyrim and mostly enjoyed F4) were their tendency to glitch out now and again, however I wasn't aware that Todd Howard had a problem of failing to deliver on his sales pitch to customers.

Last edited by Tafdolphin on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yup. I think he gets away with it as, until now, the games he's produced have been genuinely great regardless. I feel Bethesda turned a corner with Fallout 4 however, as the majority of that game's changes to the Bethesda Formula were poor additions or straight up subtractions. Remember too that they've essentially been making the same game over and over since 2007.

Iirc the radient A.I. was cut at the last minute as it broke all the quests. You have a town devoid of supplies because one npc had taken all of it and put it in their room. There was a video showing a npc fireballing her pet dog because it was barking.

Of course that could be bollocks that they said to excuse promising this thing and it not being there.

The one thing I don't like about radient A.I is it's almost too good.

Yeah, Fraud Coward is definitely a thing.

Tafdolphin wrote:Yup. I think he gets away with it as, until now, the games he's produced have been genuinely great regardless. I feel Bethesda turned a corner with Fallout 4 however, as the majority of that game's changes to the Bethesda Formula were poor additions or straight up subtractions. Remember too that they've essentially been making the same game over and over since 2007.

They've been subtracting from their game design since Morrowind. I think Fallout 4 stands out because of the voiced protagonists and because it followed New Vegas, but otherwise the differences between Oblivion and Skyrim feel just as regressive. In fact Fallout 4 gets more of a pass from me for adding settlement building and management which was a genuine whole new feature. Skyrim had what, dual wielding?

NickSCFC

I don't feel like this gen ever started for Bethesda (outside the id games like Doom), and now they're already teasing "next-gen" stuff.

One thing (among many, in my opinion) that Skyrim does better than Oblivion is the levelling of enemies not tracking the player level but instead being set from the outset of the game. That change alone elevates Skyrim above Oblivion for me.

Preezy wrote:One thing (among many, in my opinion) that Skyrim does better than Oblivion is the levelling of enemies not tracking the player level but instead being set from the outset of the game. That change alone elevates Skyrim above Oblivion for me.

Skyrim still level scales pretty hard, it just hides it better than Oblivion with various techniques. IIRC the level of an area is set once you first enter it, so on a single playthrough it will feel like everywhere has a set level as when you go back it will still be low level enemies from when you first went there. There are some enemies throughout the world that have a pre-defined level, like giants, but most still scale. The level scaling is very noticeable still on multiple playthroughs. I've experienced very different ascents to High Hrothgar as a good example with different characters. The frost troll is always there, but if you go there straight away the only other enemies you will encounter are wolves, whereas if you go there as a higher level character you'll run into ice wraiths too.

EDIT: Found a wiki link http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Leve ... es_(Skyrim)

Quiet you.

Preezy wrote:One thing (among many, in my opinion) that Skyrim does better than Oblivion is the levelling of enemies not tracking the player level but instead being set from the outset of the game. That change alone elevates Skyrim above Oblivion for me.

That old system did make leveling feel rather pointless as I'd go back to a starting area with a character I'd worked to level for weeks and find the enemies just as tough to kill as when I started. As a 20th level mage I don't expect a bog standard Kobold to give me a close fight to the death :slol:

.

I don't really think it's the same as Molyneux as they tried to implement the promised features and just couldn't get them working.

lex-man wrote:I don't really think it's the same as Molyneux as they tried to implement the promised features and just couldn't get them working.

Yeah. I feel like some of the things Molyneux was promising hadn't even been discussed with his development team, let alone researched and the viability assessed.

Website

I was wondering who this week's gaming-anti-Christ was!

Speaking of Molyneux his latest game seems to be pretty well received. Has anyone actually played it?

Gemini73

Peter Crisp wrote:
Preezy wrote:One thing (among many, in my opinion) that Skyrim does better than Oblivion is the levelling of enemies not tracking the player level but instead being set from the outset of the game. That change alone elevates Skyrim above Oblivion for me.

That old system did make leveling feel rather pointless as I'd go back to a starting area with a character I'd worked to level for weeks and find the enemies just as tough to kill as when I started. As a 20th level mage I don't expect a bog standard Kobold to give me a close fight to the death .

It really was a piss poor design choice. Coming across a peasant with better armour and weapons than you, trying to steal a gold coin was utterly bizarre.

I had no idea Todd Howard told Peter Molyneux-esque whoppers

Who is online

Affiliates