Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Faceless Stranger said:lol at still no environmental shadows in the scans
At least the tables and chairs are casting shadows now.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
At least the tables and chairs are casting shadows now.
White Knight
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Some details about skyrim. I was quite happy with it until I found out.They have fallout perks. I hope to god thats a mistake on part of the author, and its just new abilities or such that make you stronger as you progress.
http://scrawlfx.com/2011/01/first-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-details
My apologies if some have found this.
http://scrawlfx.com/2011/01/first-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-details
My apologies if some have found this.
Omg, one has to really love this kind of comments (by the way smiliey dude is Todd I think)rcorporon said:
[MrSmileyFaceDude] "You'll be reading LOTS of stuff. All of the quest lines are much more in depth, challenging and interesting. And there's a heck of a lot more to the game than just the guilds and the main quest. Lots and lots of other things to do that haven't been mentioned. Stats play a huge, huge role. Class actually has meaning this time. The game is better balanced. You have more rewards for advancement besides just getting better at things. The dungeons are better designed, the NPCs are more interesting, the dialogue is better written.
You could kill everyone in Morrowind. The game would simply tell you that you are screwed if the person was important to your main quest. But I am somewhat pretty sure we will experience those imortal NPCs again ...maximaz said:
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
DIdn't they get rid of classes?
well "yes" and "no". You dont have classes in the game with some "meaning" as you can set all your atributes and skills by your self. There is no limitation. And you can train them all. Meaning with enough time you can get 100 points in everything. And "No" because you can still "choose" some kind of class like "knight" or "wizard" or "thief". It just simply means nothing to the game. I know its just hairsplitting but still.Stanislao Moulinsky said:
DIdn't they get rid of classes?
Well, shouldn't you be able to get 100 in everything if you want? Theoretically, if someone practiced enough on enough things, they could become a master at everything. Of course, I would like to see a specialization thing, where specializing in "magic" makes magic skills level faster and a bit better.Crni Vuk said:well "yes" and "no". You dont have classes in the game with some "meaning" as you can set all your atributes and skills by your self. There is no limitation. And you can train them all. Meaning with enough time you can get 100 points in everything. And "No" because you can still "choose" some kind of class like "knight" or "wizard" or "thief". It just simply means nothing to the game. I know its just hairsplitting but still.Stanislao Moulinsky said:
DIdn't they get rid of classes?
Whats the point in building up skills anyway, just make a player a great swordsman, archer, mage, cleric, monk, fast food worker from the start, that way they can more quicker immerse themselves.
You people with the game balance. It never ends.
And I hated having to choose a perk at every level in Fallout 3. But maybe it'll be fine in Skyrim, depending on how fast players go up in level.
Well, I'm sure they aren't specifically Fallout perks. Although, I must admit, when I read there will be perks, and at every level, I kind of rolled my eyes. I knew they would bring perks over to TES, which isn't bad, I suppose, good for character building (that is, if they aren't just +10 to, say, Blade but actual character building elements, not just +/- a skill), but I'm hoping it's different from the Fallout perk system.White Knight said:
And I hated having to choose a perk at every level in Fallout 3. But maybe it'll be fine in Skyrim, depending on how fast players go up in level.
Threepwood
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Just like how Todd saw European gamers were using third person, and said he'd make it more useable. Or when he was designing FO3 and said it was playable from third person. Or when Obsidian told us they adapted FO3's third person for NV, and it was playable.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
New vegas Third person mode is playable but you have to adjust it with the mouse wheel, you can make it a overshoulder perspective and it works just fine, at least I have no problems playign like that.
Well, in theory comunism works as well. But if youre a bit used with history ...NiRv4n4 said:
I think you can follow me.
Yes. Fine point. And with each of their games I had to "download" and use some kind of mod for third person to at least get some acceptable experience.Threepwood said:
After Playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 (which has the better more fluid combat) I really think what would have helped Fallout 3 and Vegas would have been a cover based system (for both the player when using third person, and of course the AI). Not only is it making firefights better and feeling a bit more intense it gives it a more realistic feeling. But the AI in Mass Effect works in general better compared to FNV and not to mention Fallout 3 ...
I think I cant expect much from Bethesda here. I mean they have to improve on so many levels that its not funny anymore. AI, Visuals (pretty much everything), story and the content. But I am somewhat thinking they will go with the easiest route. Fixing the visuals (where it is possible), make a visualy stuning game forget the rest and let the marketing do all the necessary "improvement". IN other words telling the gamer that he will die if he doesnt buy Oblivion 2. I mean they did that 2 times in a row, with Oblivion 1 and Fallout 3 selling crap (sorry thats my oppinion) for gold. Doing that 2 times deserves some kind of respect (hey, trick me once, shame on you, trick me TWICE shame on me! So gamers should take the blame no
? )
who says it has to include a "regeneration" (I am not a fan of that either).
Also it cant be more repetitive then how it is now with storming, zig zaging, stupid AI which cant even lob a grenade over a courner
Also it cant be more repetitive then how it is now with storming, zig zaging, stupid AI which cant even lob a grenade over a courner
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
As much as I like the Mass Effect series, I would not like to see it's combat in a Fallout game. Cover-based shooters work in linear environments like ME's; open world would make it very hard to effectively place usable cover at every spot where there might be a firefight. Plus ME has biotics and tech powers that keep combats interesting, while Fallout has no such thing, cover-based from first person would be annoying, ect. Not that what we have is perfect, but it works better for the setting I think.
On topic, this looks much like what was announced for Oblivion, revolutionary combat system and awesome graphics and immersive AI ect. Since we know how that turned out, I will be very prudent with Skyrim and wait for more info before passing judgement.
The only thing I really like this use of both hands for spells/weapons, hopefully it will allow creative use of the PC's abilities. But that quest level scaling stuff looks horrible even in concept.
On topic, this looks much like what was announced for Oblivion, revolutionary combat system and awesome graphics and immersive AI ect. Since we know how that turned out, I will be very prudent with Skyrim and wait for more info before passing judgement.
The only thing I really like this use of both hands for spells/weapons, hopefully it will allow creative use of the PC's abilities. But that quest level scaling stuff looks horrible even in concept.
well I was talking about Fallout 3 and Vegas. I hardly ever seen people throwing grenades at me. Actualy I cant remember any single time so I assume they dont switch their weapons.Ausdoerrt said:
I gave up the idea to get some "fallout combat" a long long time ago. Hence why I expect at least the "stat-based-franken-shooter" combat not to suck at least. And while it might not be that bad that you cnat play it it still is simply just mediocre compared to other shooters (be it mass effect or crysis).Ilosar said:
One can say what he wants but F3 is just a mediocre shooter for example. And Vegas was a bit better but still very similar.
I dont think so. What would the cover change actualy compared to what you have now where peopler either A ) stand around and shoot or B ) charge/zig zag at you and shoot. The AI using SOME cover, would give the firefights a bit more realism in the visual presentation. I mean its not like anyone would "force" you to use cover. It would simply be some option. It would open up more possibilities. For surpression fire, or flanking manouvers etc. Something to spice up combat a bit as that was the part I thought was extremly boring in both F3 and Vegas.Ilosar said:
Also it can be done in first person as well, it just depends how much time you want to spend on it to make it feel "natural" :
(This is a multiplayer shooter, still it offers both interior and exterior combat and has a cover system in first person)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQo9eFPoo4[/youtube]
shows the cover system a bit more in detail
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmQfZKRb4Rc&feature=related[/youtube]
As said I am talking about "more" options for the player it would not take anything away from you with open combat for example.
You make it seem like there's no "third choice" between cover and crappy FO3 AI. There's a plenty of shooter games with good AI without a cover system. STALKER series is one of them.
Also, as Borderlands has shown, a stat-based shooter sort of works. It's not greatly entertaining from a shooter point of view, but it's not bad either. The problem with FO3 is just the crappy implementation coupled with engine glitches (invisible extensions to walls, aiming issues etc).
Also, as Borderlands has shown, a stat-based shooter sort of works. It's not greatly entertaining from a shooter point of view, but it's not bad either. The problem with FO3 is just the crappy implementation coupled with engine glitches (invisible extensions to walls, aiming issues etc).
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
I get where what you want to say, Crni Vuk, the problem is cover-based shooters are (captain obvious incoming, sorry) based around it. The levels are specificaly designed with it in mind. The Red Orchestra videos make a big deal of designing the level with cover; as I said, it works for linear single-player or multiplayer maps where the field of battle is clearly defined and limited, but putting objects that can be used for cover (because they have to be specifically marked so, I imagine) all over the wasteland is quite a task, not to mention that conveniently placed rocks everywhere in a desert where firefights happen would be a little silly.