Quote:
Originally Posted by JemyM
I also wouldnt claim a game that basicly point out where to go with a red arrow to solve each quest as "intelligent".
|
I think we recently went a little into that in a Spector related thread. The conclusion was that many a company could be very well underestimating its audience. Design like that can take away all the joys of discovery, of exploration, the feeling of satisfaction and participating one gets from actually uncovering the game's world and secrets on one's own. Not sure if that's the case with "Oblivion", but ye, I've seen those pop-up windows that constantly update your quest status, those made me grin a little.
That said, though, those forums are complete full of sh*t. Sorry. I played and totally digged almost all the games you listed above. Exactly the way they were. But, and this is a very BIG but: I wouldn't have any respect whatsoever for any projects which design documents is written in such a way that it's merely working off a tick-list of rigid features just to make it fit a retarded box (think: "RPG"). I haven't played "Oblivion", since I'm already well fed by its two predecessors (well that and my machine can't run it
) so I can't tell, but I wouldn't care a rat's ass if Oblivion is a fine RPG™ or whatever. The only thing that matters is if the designers made their vision come true. Bethesda's vision for their "Elder Scrolls" series has *always* been RADICALLY different from anything Bioware/Black Isle et all, regardless if all of these games are getting tossed into the same box or not. And most of all: if it just works for me or not. If it's a good game. Just like all the games you listed above were good games™ first and foremost. Period.
edit: MasterLoo beat me to it
: "Warcraft 3 TFT" on b.net (and skirmishes against CPU opponents) and, uh... "Blackthorne". A tiny lil' bit.
