9th October 2004, 7:49 PM
Uh, no. Not true. I started the thread to say that, because I have now played Arena, I understand the format of Morrowind better now. See, as far as I can tell the only single player games like Morrowind are Arena and Daggerfall. I can't think of anything else in the same category. I like RPGs. So I wanted to try this kind of RPG as well. And you know what? As I said, it's not like it's all bad... actually Arena is pretty fun. Maybe that didn't come across (or you paid very little attention), but Arena is fun... I just identified some things that I would call issues that are pretty much all true in Daggerfall as well. Is it really so unreasonable to ask if they are also true in Morrowind? We aren't talking about a change of your example of Mario World to Mario 64 here! Going by Arena to Daggerfall, the series change would probably be better compared to the example I used: Blizzard's RTSes. As in, substantial change but the same basic themes and game design, as one would expect.
And before you once again say how different Morrowind is, how come the biggest complaints about the game are exactly what I stated here: so open-ended you get lost or tired of going through the styilistically different but substantively similar areas.
So. Can you answer this? I really am interested.
This one's more about why you consider the game fun given the limitations (that is, why you consider it better than a normal RPG that is more focused).
Actually, I'd like to add one thing. About combat. On the one hand, the extremely simplistic combat detracts from the game because it makes it shallower and less complex. On the other hand, I don't think you could make the system too complex. Not in a game of this scope. It's just too big, too long, and has too many fights to work well with a slow-paced combat engine like most RPGs have... that would probably greatly increase the amount of time the game would take and that wouldn't be good for something already as overly long as these games. So some kind of simple combat is almost required, I think... given that the open-endedness and scale are the main draws of the game and obviously wouldn't change.
And before you once again say how different Morrowind is, how come the biggest complaints about the game are exactly what I stated here: so open-ended you get lost or tired of going through the styilistically different but substantively similar areas.
So. Can you answer this? I really am interested.
Quote:-Interaction with the NPCs. How much can you say to the people? Topics other than asking locations? Any personal details at all? Do they say different things in different parts of the world? Are the names greatly varied?
-Quests. Different in different regions? Unique dungeon layouts most of the time? Keep you interested in going through dungeons in new locations (with a good variety of graphic sets for dungeons, enemy variation, other things of that nature)? Is the main story worth following? Are there other stories (told by quests that are optional) that are worth doing for a story standpoint?
-Towns. Are they truly differently designed? Different people names, shop names, sizes, etc. Things to do in a town that are unique to the area (don't know of any such thing in the first two titles).
-Combat. Complexity. Challenge. Beyond button-mashing (or, in Daggerfall or Arena, mouse-waving -- to swing your sword you click and hold the right mouse button and move the mouse in the way you want to swing your sword. It's a very unique system that doesn't have much gameplay implications -- I can't tell if different ones have much different effect -- but in a more advanced (newer) game like Morrowind I could easily see it being pretty interesting if they kept that same system... did they? This I'm interested to hear, because that sword system is the one unique thing in the combat and the one thing keeping it above being a clickfest. Magic... magic is just clicking on 'cast spell' and choosing the spell.
This one's more about why you consider the game fun given the limitations (that is, why you consider it better than a normal RPG that is more focused).
Quote:"But you can do anything!" Hmm... anything? Like get into meaningful conversations with people? Oh, not that. Only in relation to quests, and even there I have not heard great praise of this aspect of any of the TES games, to say the least. Go to new places? Yup. Kill anyone? Pretty much yeah. See that new places are substantively different from the old (not just new graphics)? Not so much. Finish the game? Quite unlikely. It seems like 'anything' refers more to 'can go to many locations that are physically far apart and look different' and 'play side-quests or explore dungeons until I get bored or make my character all-powerful'.
Actually, I'd like to add one thing. About combat. On the one hand, the extremely simplistic combat detracts from the game because it makes it shallower and less complex. On the other hand, I don't think you could make the system too complex. Not in a game of this scope. It's just too big, too long, and has too many fights to work well with a slow-paced combat engine like most RPGs have... that would probably greatly increase the amount of time the game would take and that wouldn't be good for something already as overly long as these games. So some kind of simple combat is almost required, I think... given that the open-endedness and scale are the main draws of the game and obviously wouldn't change.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}