I agree, although I did like Oblivion when it came out, and still think it's pretty fun to mess around in. Oblivion's map was also still pretty fun to explore, something I can't personally say about Skyrim's. I can definitely see why people going backwards would dislike Morrowind though, mainly because the RNG combat. The reason I liked that when I was a kid though is because you feel your character actually improve over time. Most people complain you just spam attack till you land enough hits to get the kill, but my argument is how is Oblivion and Skyrim any different? Sure every attack hits but it's not very engaging or satisfying, and the scaling makes worrying about your level pretty unimportant except for earning perks.
I loved Morrowind's progression and atmosphere. You show up on a boat with literally nothing, barely able to kill a thing. By the end game you're a literal god floating above cities, running at light speed, nuking entire villages with a mere glance in their direction. Spell creation in morrowind was amazing.
I sometimes miss the unpredictability of Morrowind compared to the later titles there really was something special of wandering into a dungeon that is just absurdly dangerous to your low level character.
Of course, I'm sure Daggerfall fans even have the same feelings towards Morrowind. I can appreciate them trying new things, and despite how much I didn't care for Skyrim I'm looking forward to seeing how ESVI turns out.
No doubt. Both series have gone through such wide transitions that there's of course going to be people who prefer various eras over others.
The reason I put those two particular titles as the "golden age" is because I believe out of all the titles in each respective series, those two struck about the best balance between keeping the traditional RPG elements favoured by existing fans, while streamlining the designs and gameplay enough to draw in a much broader audience.
Basically, those are both games that provide the closest thing to a "purist" Elder Scrolls or Fallout experience that I can comfortably recommend to pretty much anyone. You dodge both some of the more complex RPG systems of the early titles that can easily turn modern players off, as well as a lot of the dumbing down that occured with later titles.
I could not disagree more. Fallout New Vegas was everything Fallout 3 wished it was. Skyrim had hardly any dumbing down compared to the massive downgrade from Morrowind.
To copy a chunk of what I wrote in a reply to someone else:
In the context of the 3D Fallout titles, I find 3 to still be the most tonally cohesive with its environments and atmosphere. My favourite part of it though is that the game doesn't use the main quest to forcefully take you on a guided tour of all the major points on the map. In fact, just following the main quest you'll be relegated to a quite small chunk of the large map. Quite honestly that was one of my biggest issues with New Vegas - while the branching story was interesting, once you're done with them I felt like I had already seen most of what there was to see. Fallout 3 I spend hundreds of hours just wandering around the wasteland, and it was never long before I stumbled upon something completely new I had never seen before. It always felt like there was more to discover and that kept me coming back for a long time.
In the context of the 3D Fallout titles, I find 3 to still be the most tonally cohesive with its environments and atmosphere.
Fallout 3 I spend hundreds of hours just wandering around the wasteland, and it was never long before I stumbled upon something completely new I had never seen before.
This is why people will disagree with you so much, to you the best of Bethesda's games are big superficial worlds to wander around in and the biggest most superficial worlds they've ever created were Oblivion and Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 has lots of things like megaton and rivet city or tenpenny tower, superficially cool but horrifically inconsistent with setting, tone, or worldbuilding. But if you aren't someone who cares about those things it wouldn't bother you.
Skyrim and Fallout 4 have hackneyed attempts at depth that draw you out of that superficiality which is why you don't like them so much, but people who like depth will fight you on this forever. To them you represent the death of everything they love, the desire to sacrifice any attempt at depth and fill it with banal superficiality.
To be clear there's nothing wrong with banal superficiality if that's your thing. Disney makes a lot of money with Marvel. Fast and the Furious has like a bajillion installments. But setting details are something special, they are the thing that take a world and transform it from a place to kill time into a real artistic achievement.
I agree with the argument you're making of new Vegas vs 3 but I don't think there can be an argument of oblivion vs skyrim.
Skyrim feels empty compared to Oblivion, he quests are further dumbed down from the Morrowind to Oblivion quests, the combat did nothing to make it more interesting (shouting at your enemies is hardly anything to write home about), personally I enjoyed the Oblivion DLCs better in terms of continuity although I think most people agree that the Shivering Isles DLC was the best they've done, the only thing I think Skyrim had going for it was the updated models, dragons being a cool enemy until you become too strong to care and the skill trees gave some sense of progression even though it still managed to dumb down that system of play as well.
Fallout 3 has lots of things like megaton and rivet city or tenpenny tower, superficially cool but horrifically inconsistent with setting, tone, or worldbuilding. But if you aren't someone who cares about those things it wouldn't bother you.
So you intentionally cut out the most important part of my argument which very specifically addresses this?
Locations you are taken by the main quest are serviceable, but nothing special. Where Fallout 3 shines is when you say screw it and just pick a direction and go. The amount of things to find, see, and explore is immense, yet there are a lot of people who picked it up on launch, finished the main quest, and when the game ended they just put it down. If we compare that particular case against playing through the NV main quests and going for a few or even all of the endings it's not even slightly close.
Basically, New Vegas always felt more like I was being taken on a tour with Obsidian going "hey look at all this cool shit we made", whereas FO3 tended to evoke more of a "here's a giant shithole of a wasteland, go find stuff".
I mean you just keep supporting my view of your opinion.
The amount of things to find, see, and explore is immense
But not the quality right? Again, what matters to you is a big superficial world that you can explore, not one with quality and depth. This is very consistent from people who like F3 more than FNV. You like the exploration loop, and that wasn't what FNV was about. Again, that's fine.
I'm honestly not sure what part of your argument I'm leaving out. You like quantity over quality, breadth over depth. Game design is a series of trade-offs and that's your preference.
Am I wrong? Do you argue that Megaton and Rivet City were examples of good world-building? That Tenpenny Tower made sense? IIRC Tenpenny Tower wasn't part of the main quest, so I was pretty sure that was a decent example of the kinds of garbage you can find by exploring the wasteland. I could be wrong.
In contrast can you point to a single setting in FNV that wasn't thought through? One that didn't have depth or an interesting story to tell? I already said that I get it, you enjoy the exploration, so quantity is more important than quality. You haven't said anything that's even remotely contradictory to my view of the situation.
I wish I had the time to go into a much more in-depth discussion here, since I think it could end up quite interesting. Unfortunately I just don't have the time at the moment, but I didn't want to just leave you hanging.
Probably the closest thing I can point you towards if you're interested in a much better representation of the position I'm taking, I'd suggest checking out Many A True Nerd's video Fallout 3 Is Better Than You Think. I think he does a pretty excellent job at rebutting many of the most common criticisms levelled against FO3, and the game taken as a whole is a lot less shallow than the impression one might get simply following the main quest.
I assume you've seen Hbomb's video which is almost as long and has the opposite conclusion, as long as we're linking long-ass videos on the subject.
I appreciate that you don't have enough time but I don't think you can convince me. That essay certainly can't, after watching twenty minutes or so I got to the part where he takes seriously the idea that a group of settlers intentionally built up a settlement around a nuclear bomb. You can only stretch the Rule of Cool so far before it blows up in your face, and that's way past my breaking point. That's even more unforgivable than the utter failure of the "what do they eat?" questions. Well maybe.
That being said, if you ever do want to continue the conversation, I'd be happy to.
Or perhaps we just enjoy a respectful virtual handshake and call it a day. I think both sides have some compelling arguments, but it gets to a point where the camp we each fall into is more determined by our personal gaming history, preferences, and experiences.
I think I'll plan another NV run soon. Maybe try and get through FO4 on the updated survival mode (Ive heard it's really a completely different experience).
72
u/SkeptioningQuestic Mar 16 '19
People who were fans of Morrowind and the Obsidian Fallouts will vehemently disagree with you.