- Joined
- April 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,749
How many open-world games did Bethesda make prior to Arena?
Yes, because arena and skyrim are at the same level.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,749
How many open-world games did Bethesda make prior to Arena?
Yes, because arena and skyrim are at the same level.
Another possibility could be same scale, but with different distribution of content - few content-dense centres along with content-light landscapes meant to be traversed/explored quickly on a horse.I don't think game will be anything like skyrim I don't think it fits CDPR and Witcher series.I am pretty certain game will be far smaller in scale and more dense with content.
"there’s the fact that while there’s only really been one series that has truly made open-world RPGs work – the Elder Scrolls games"
This is where they lost me. That's a huge overstatement, if I ever saw one. They may have made open world RPGs sell due to moving the genre to mass market via consoles, but they sure as hell haven't made it "work" as it is, at least not exclusively. Several degrees of open world have been achieved with - in my opinion - far greater success in cohesion and overall quality than in TES games.
name one? Be honest here and not with the weird hate generated here.
I'm curious also. There are plenty of games that tried and failed but your right. I can't think of any as successful as Bethesda either. Some might say the Gothic series but there wrong.
I wasn't talking just about sales number. Quality,skill, and sales none have ever beat Bethesda. But thank you for your response. As usual.I don't think Soulbane was talking about sales numbers. Maybe you should try reading his post again.
Another possibility could be same scale, but with different distribution of content - few content-dense centres along with content-light landscapes meant to be traversed/explored quickly on a horse.
I wasn't talking just about sales number. Quality,skill, and sales none have ever beat Bethesda. But thank you for your response. As usual.
You could also call this "padding" realism. In most games, including previous Witcher games, if you are travelling on a path through the woods, you can't stray from the path. Would it not be nice if you could, even if the woods contained little else but trees? In reality, you seldom leave the path unless you are hunting for berries, mushrooms or prey. Which could be useful when gathering ingredients for alchemy in a fantasy game. "Padding" is not time wasting, unless exploring it is mandatory. Neither is there anything particularly "artificial" about such padding, whereas small, insurmountable fences and invisible walls come across as artificial.If the whole game world isn't equaly explorable than "content-light landscapes" become useless, time wasting artificial padding.
In most games, including previous Witcher games, if you are travelling on a path through the woods, you can't stray from the path.
I'm old and my memory is not what it used to be. Nevertheless, I seem to recall at least some particularly silly insurmountable fences in the first Withcer game. But the way my mind works these days, it might have been a Fable game. Anyway, I'm talking about genral game design here, which tend to be of the canyon variety.Eh? That's certainly not how I remember the Witcher games. There were some forced paths in TW1, but I recall TW2 being completely open within the boundaries of its levels.
The outrage!I'm with DArt on this. If the whole game world isn't equaly explorable than "content-light landscapes" become useless, time wasting artificial padding.