Skyrim to have fable 3 like features
- Thread starter DPeteD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Same here. There is just too much money in casuals to ignore them. I don't think we will ever get a proper RPG-style game from Bethesda again.MacJack said:
I mean, c'mon, RPGs have never been about player skill and are all about the stats that represent your character. Morrowind NAILED it where your character could be weak, and no amount of skillful playing could compensate for that. Yet it still offered the feeling that the player was the character, so they would know what they could handle and what they couldn't. Yet despite all that, Skyrim seems oblivion-bent on making the game a hack-'n-slash with virtually no RPG elements. Why even call it a RPG then?
i couldnt play fallout:NV for very long before the glitches turned me off, but if i hear correctly there were relationships in that game with your companions; in that respect, this could work. having a housewife? that will not work; that will run into the same problem fable has always had of NPC relationships being pointless and emotionless. i cant get attached to a character that serves no purpose; thats just basic narrative design.
but again, relationships with your adventuring companions could work, as long as they revamp the implementation of companions to be more like fallout. in oblivion, there were no companions; just enemies that took 3 hits of friendly fire before attacking you. seriously, unless you were both archers/casters, someone was getting hit with friendly fire; and if no one was getting hit, you were frustratingly trying to manipulate the fight to avoid friendly fire rather than focusing on the actual bloody fighting. in fallout3/NV, pretty much everyone uses guns, and even then you can use vats; companions werent a terrible annoyance, they were actually useful. i dont know how they can reconcile the lack of vats and greater prevalence of melee weapons to make companions not a fucking nuisance....but at any rate, relationships with characters that are at least SUPPOSED to be helpful can work. they serve a purpose, im SUPPOSED to want them around....i just hope they realize the effort required to implement this feature properly, and dont churn out some tacked on annoyance like fable; itll be more a measure of what purpose your beloved serves than of bethesda's skills in romantic dialogue.
heres hoping there is a crassius curio in skyrim to fall in love with
but again, relationships with your adventuring companions could work, as long as they revamp the implementation of companions to be more like fallout. in oblivion, there were no companions; just enemies that took 3 hits of friendly fire before attacking you. seriously, unless you were both archers/casters, someone was getting hit with friendly fire; and if no one was getting hit, you were frustratingly trying to manipulate the fight to avoid friendly fire rather than focusing on the actual bloody fighting. in fallout3/NV, pretty much everyone uses guns, and even then you can use vats; companions werent a terrible annoyance, they were actually useful. i dont know how they can reconcile the lack of vats and greater prevalence of melee weapons to make companions not a fucking nuisance....but at any rate, relationships with characters that are at least SUPPOSED to be helpful can work. they serve a purpose, im SUPPOSED to want them around....i just hope they realize the effort required to implement this feature properly, and dont churn out some tacked on annoyance like fable; itll be more a measure of what purpose your beloved serves than of bethesda's skills in romantic dialogue.
heres hoping there is a crassius curio in skyrim to fall in love with
Well I'm okay with it so long as it doesn't go overboard. You know like...one wife...not a wife in each town or a gods freakin' harem...though a harem would actually be fitting if a game was set in an Arab-esque setting...but alas...still so long as the scope is limited and you make me actually care about the character...roll with it.
Here's the thing...
None of us should care about this addition so long as Bethesda does at least one of these:
1) Get's their characters out of the uncanny valley
2) Actually adds likeable NPCs to the game.
None of us should care about this addition so long as Bethesda does at least one of these:
1) Get's their characters out of the uncanny valley
2) Actually adds likeable NPCs to the game.
Honestly, doesn't sound that different than other games. You could make friends in Oblivion and Morrowind by maxing out their "liking-you" bar thing. This just sounds like it makes that useful for something other than assassination (Morrowind) or... better prices at stores (Oblivion)? I am honestly drawing a blank as to why they had those features in previous games, since they were essentially useless in the previous ones.
If it doesn't hinder the gameplay, I'm good with it.
But if it means I'm going to get some NPC being all like Navi and constantly begging for attention...
But if it means I'm going to get some NPC being all like Navi and constantly begging for attention...
I think crying isn't s good way to see it. If anything, it's an easily ignored feature that they're experimenting with. I'd like to see how they execute it, because in Fable 2, once you got married, you had a ball-and-chain attached to your adventuring, with in-game days determining the various needs your family had, so you ideally would not be able to travel very far before having to return to your family. In Fable 3, I opted to not get married at all based on my experiences with the second, although I must say that there may be some differences, but marriage is a universally understood concept, so it might not have been that different.
One other thing one should bring up is that the characters in (even Oblivion) had actual names, were unique and different for each person (as different as the random generator would allow, anyway) and they would have their own routines. One thing to note, is that on the lower levels, you'd get to choose what species your spouse would be. If anything, the ten different species would invite plenty of less than pleasant thoughts, but it is different from Fable 3, where only gender defined the difference between NPC's as they had only a first name, and one of several cookie-cutter outfits and body types. In Skyrim, we'll see characters with connections to groups and organizations, and they will have a name and face. This sets them infinitely apart from Fable 3, as instead of killing one of a thousand 'Thems' you're killing John or Jane Doe, who were perhaps connected to the fighters guild. Or the Mages guild, perhaps.
For players who like playing in the dark, having someone to watch your back might be helpful, and if it's like companions in Fallout, where you can give them armor and weapons, you could make them entirely invisible, give them a spell or a bow and arrow, and while you charge in relentlessly tearing things apart in your own way, your invisible Dark-Brotherhood spouse sets upon them with poisoned arrows and spells.
On the whole, it seems like an attempt to have compantions, but have them in a closer bond than "we're in it only because we have a common goal" rather than making it a slightly more murderous "family vacation." It might be used to up the stakes in the story, but since most players won't care, it might not go over so well. The mechanic is an experiment, and if it is as easily ignored as in Fable 3, then it should work fine, if random NPC's start asking for marriage at every turn, then it will become incredibly annoying, and in some people's games, I'm sure the marriage mechanic might be the only reason Skyrim has about 117,000 less NPC's on the world map.
One other thing one should bring up is that the characters in (even Oblivion) had actual names, were unique and different for each person (as different as the random generator would allow, anyway) and they would have their own routines. One thing to note, is that on the lower levels, you'd get to choose what species your spouse would be. If anything, the ten different species would invite plenty of less than pleasant thoughts, but it is different from Fable 3, where only gender defined the difference between NPC's as they had only a first name, and one of several cookie-cutter outfits and body types. In Skyrim, we'll see characters with connections to groups and organizations, and they will have a name and face. This sets them infinitely apart from Fable 3, as instead of killing one of a thousand 'Thems' you're killing John or Jane Doe, who were perhaps connected to the fighters guild. Or the Mages guild, perhaps.
For players who like playing in the dark, having someone to watch your back might be helpful, and if it's like companions in Fallout, where you can give them armor and weapons, you could make them entirely invisible, give them a spell or a bow and arrow, and while you charge in relentlessly tearing things apart in your own way, your invisible Dark-Brotherhood spouse sets upon them with poisoned arrows and spells.
On the whole, it seems like an attempt to have compantions, but have them in a closer bond than "we're in it only because we have a common goal" rather than making it a slightly more murderous "family vacation." It might be used to up the stakes in the story, but since most players won't care, it might not go over so well. The mechanic is an experiment, and if it is as easily ignored as in Fable 3, then it should work fine, if random NPC's start asking for marriage at every turn, then it will become incredibly annoying, and in some people's games, I'm sure the marriage mechanic might be the only reason Skyrim has about 117,000 less NPC's on the world map.
I have no problem with this. It's far from a vital part of the game, and I like the idea anyway.
Also, bar-fights are confirmed. Yes. A million times yes.
Also, bar-fights are confirmed. Yes. A million times yes.
Why do you care? If you don't like it, don't use it. What it sounds like to me is the companion/follower system from the Fallout games, only more in-depth, seeing as you can marry people.
Plus, I'm not really all that surprised. They DID say they were adding things like farming and mining to the game, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Plus, I'm not really all that surprised. They DID say they were adding things like farming and mining to the game, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.