Why the open-worlds of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series are superior to those in The Elder Scrolls series
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Look how much I care if an algorithm is deciding where some bloke a thousand miles away is going while I'm doing something else...
Games are built around your character. It's about what you do. Nothing and I mean nothing exists in the world unless you interact with it or potentially interact with it. All that a game can do is create an algorithm to decide change how they look if you are there. I think focusing on developing a world while ignoring the player is the opposite of good design. Games just don't work that way.
Games are built around your character. It's about what you do. Nothing and I mean nothing exists in the world unless you interact with it or potentially interact with it. All that a game can do is create an algorithm to decide change how they look if you are there. I think focusing on developing a world while ignoring the player is the opposite of good design. Games just don't work that way.
Even though I enjoy TES more overall, the "specialness" of the main character is a downside to me, I do prefer a Stalker type open world.
It's crazy that GSC could run out of money now, of all times, with so many publishers who want to copy the success of Skyrim.
It's crazy that GSC could run out of money now, of all times, with so many publishers who want to copy the success of Skyrim.
GSC closed it's doors? Well that sucks.
I loved the first STALKER. Some of the most memorable moments in my sandbox gaming history are within STALKER. And I loved it -because- it was so little scripted. Getting a call for help from another group of stalkers and getting there only to find out they made it by themselves, or, if you were too late, were all killed, that was what made it so special. Shit went down, whether you were around or not and that is the best way to give the feeling of a real, living world.
Nothing beats entering a zone and hearing gunfire in the distance and KNOWING that it's not just background sound; there's some real action going on, somewhere.
I loved the first STALKER. Some of the most memorable moments in my sandbox gaming history are within STALKER. And I loved it -because- it was so little scripted. Getting a call for help from another group of stalkers and getting there only to find out they made it by themselves, or, if you were too late, were all killed, that was what made it so special. Shit went down, whether you were around or not and that is the best way to give the feeling of a real, living world.
Nothing beats entering a zone and hearing gunfire in the distance and KNOWING that it's not just background sound; there's some real action going on, somewhere.
You know, that actually sounds a surprising amount like my dream game (though it isn't a 5-way crossover between Halo, Half-Life, Mass Effect, Star Wars and Warhammer 40,000, nor is it set on a multi-biomed large area on an alien planet with fully functioning wildlife from all those games while the armies clash and try to destroy one another... I'm getting off track). I might have to pick one of them up some day.
So basically, GSC were better at giving actual lives to their NPCs than Bethsoft, which is supposed to be Bethsoft's calling card? Can't argue with that. I haven't played Oblivion or Shadow of Chernobyl that much, but I definitely found a random pack of dogs fighting amongst themselves to be more interesting than the procedurally generated NPC conversations.
Disclaimer: I love Skyrim
But...
...I always thought through my playthrough of Skyrim that it should have an A-life system like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. Whenever I'm exploring and I find some wolves attacking a goat or a dragon screaming at a camp of Imperials, I feel far more intrigued than I ever did with the main quest.
Call of Pripyat (which should be the game being compared to Skyrim, not the also awesome but much more linear Shadow of Chernobyl), did an amazing job of making you feel like just another part of a living world. The unscripted events are amazingly satisfying because they actually allow for real satisfaction instead of some placebo effect. Unscripted events are genuine, and when they can match the quality of a scripted event with the knowledge that nobody handcrafted the experience, the game feels so far ahead of its time.
As much as I like Skyrim, urprobablyright got it perfect with this phrase:
In Skyrim, someone may ask me to go find an certain item for them. At this point the item will spawn along with other stuff in the final chest inside a dungeon that I may or may not have already been to and looted. The quest serves no purpose except to point out a dungeon.
In Call of Pripyat, I may be asked to find a certain artifact. I'm not told where or how, so I have to explore anomalies where it could potentially appear. This brings me in contact with other Stalkers and mutants already doing their own thing, which could include searching for the same artifact. If they get it first, I can trade them for it or kill them and loot their bodies, which could cause issues down the road.
While Skyrim is huge and expansive and awesome, it still feels like an open world filled with linear activities. It doesn't fool me. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fools me, and creates an incredibly immersive and satisfying experience.
But...
...I always thought through my playthrough of Skyrim that it should have an A-life system like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. Whenever I'm exploring and I find some wolves attacking a goat or a dragon screaming at a camp of Imperials, I feel far more intrigued than I ever did with the main quest.
Call of Pripyat (which should be the game being compared to Skyrim, not the also awesome but much more linear Shadow of Chernobyl), did an amazing job of making you feel like just another part of a living world. The unscripted events are amazingly satisfying because they actually allow for real satisfaction instead of some placebo effect. Unscripted events are genuine, and when they can match the quality of a scripted event with the knowledge that nobody handcrafted the experience, the game feels so far ahead of its time.
As much as I like Skyrim, urprobablyright got it perfect with this phrase:
Open worlds are so intriguing because they work towards the idea of a living world that players can interact with while exploring. Skyrim got the exploration bit right, but interaction is minimal. The dragons are the best part that takes advantage of the open world, but I think Bethesda floundered when writing dynamic content in the form of repeatable quests. When dynamic content becomes predictable (such as the hilariously lazily designed Letters from a Friend, bandits in every fort, repeatable quests after finishing a guild storyline, etc), you have a problem.urprobablyright said:
In Skyrim, someone may ask me to go find an certain item for them. At this point the item will spawn along with other stuff in the final chest inside a dungeon that I may or may not have already been to and looted. The quest serves no purpose except to point out a dungeon.
In Call of Pripyat, I may be asked to find a certain artifact. I'm not told where or how, so I have to explore anomalies where it could potentially appear. This brings me in contact with other Stalkers and mutants already doing their own thing, which could include searching for the same artifact. If they get it first, I can trade them for it or kill them and loot their bodies, which could cause issues down the road.
While Skyrim is huge and expansive and awesome, it still feels like an open world filled with linear activities. It doesn't fool me. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fools me, and creates an incredibly immersive and satisfying experience.
I agree that the fact that every event is centered around the player in Skyrim is bad, I don't think having the world be completely apathetic towards you is always a better way to handle it. I want things to happen when I'm not there, but sometimes I want a game that empowers me. I can get the sense of being just another insignificant creature in a sea of others like me in real life, and while sometimes it's cool to see a game manage to replicate that, it isn't inherently better than a game that makes you the center of attention.
Also, there's nothing wrong with stories that are prepared for the player, if they're well made. I think having a large amount of pre-made, linear quests as well as the capacity for completely dynamic stories that occur in the world randomly is the best approach, though budget and time constraints obviously make that difficult.
Also, there's nothing wrong with stories that are prepared for the player, if they're well made. I think having a large amount of pre-made, linear quests as well as the capacity for completely dynamic stories that occur in the world randomly is the best approach, though budget and time constraints obviously make that difficult.
Erm, have people already forgotten what the Elder of scroll is and what it represents? have people already forgotten what TES is based on?
You cant really compare TES and Stalker together without having to break barriers and defy the very purpose of the games, it's the same as comparing apples and oranges.
You cant really compare TES and Stalker together without having to break barriers and defy the very purpose of the games, it's the same as comparing apples and oranges.
