|
On October 29 2011 06:31 IMABUNNEH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 06:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 28 2011 21:48 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 20:55 Excludos wrote:On October 28 2011 08:48 Venality wrote:At first I was thinking of getting the Collector's Edition, but at this point I am not sure. I may just save the extra money it would have been to buy their DLC they are putting out. Man it irritates me that the game isn't even out and they are talking DLC already.... just put it in the game now before it comes out please? Me love you long time if you do..  Extra Credits had an episode about DLC, but I can't find it atm. The reason you're hearing about DLC before the game is even out, is it: Near the end of a production (usually between when the game is done and shipping), there is suddenly a lot of time for the developers where they don't have anything to do. They either jump on a new project, or start working on those DLCs. If they where to put the DLCs in the game, then the game would have to be delayed, and this cycle would last forever. Or, which is the case a lot of the time, it's content that was cut from the game. Prime example would be Deus Ex: HR. They said before they started cutting content, the game would take well over 120 hours to finish. Most games are like this, just not in that extreme. Lots of content is cut from the final game for various reasons. Repackaging this cut content and selling it as "DLC" is a very common tactic for developers. When you cut content from a game, you cut it. You don't built it, then leave it aside to collect dust until it's 'DLC time' and throw it on the web. It's literally not made at all. DLC is always made AFTER the game has gone gold. Whether it was in the original design document for the game or not, it's all built from scratch at that point (besides the re-using of art where appropriate). Content can get cut from a game for many different reasons but the primary three are 1) Budget/resources 2) Time 3) Quality P.S. 'Quality' can be vague. But, in general, more content does not imply a better product. For example, Assassin's Creed 1 might have been a better game if it had less content and more effort was put into making the experience a lot less repetitive. Hence why there are zero games in the last 3 years that have had DLC available the week the game released. .... nvm.
Eschaton just explained it for you. There's pretty much an entire month after the game goes Gold where they can work on (and more importantly TEST) extra content for DLC or patches. Why do you think most games have a patch on release day, too?
In the past, developers would just jump straight into the next project. These days, with digital distribution becoming mainstream, DLC has become a good mini-project to commit a small component of the team to, while the majority starts on the foundations of the next project.
But, believe what you want. Either I'm right, or it's just those big, bad developers who invariably work 80-100 hour weeks in the closing months of any AAA development project being greedy.
|
On October 29 2011 06:36 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 06:31 IMABUNNEH wrote:On October 29 2011 06:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 28 2011 21:48 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 20:55 Excludos wrote:On October 28 2011 08:48 Venality wrote:At first I was thinking of getting the Collector's Edition, but at this point I am not sure. I may just save the extra money it would have been to buy their DLC they are putting out. Man it irritates me that the game isn't even out and they are talking DLC already.... just put it in the game now before it comes out please? Me love you long time if you do.. Extra Credits had an episode about DLC, but I can't find it atm. The reason you're hearing about DLC before the game is even out, is it: Near the end of a production (usually between when the game is done and shipping), there is suddenly a lot of time for the developers where they don't have anything to do. They either jump on a new project, or start working on those DLCs. If they where to put the DLCs in the game, then the game would have to be delayed, and this cycle would last forever. Or, which is the case a lot of the time, it's content that was cut from the game. Prime example would be Deus Ex: HR. They said before they started cutting content, the game would take well over 120 hours to finish. Most games are like this, just not in that extreme. Lots of content is cut from the final game for various reasons. Repackaging this cut content and selling it as "DLC" is a very common tactic for developers. When you cut content from a game, you cut it. You don't built it, then leave it aside to collect dust until it's 'DLC time' and throw it on the web. It's literally not made at all. DLC is always made AFTER the game has gone gold. Whether it was in the original design document for the game or not, it's all built from scratch at that point (besides the re-using of art where appropriate). Content can get cut from a game for many different reasons but the primary three are 1) Budget/resources 2) Time 3) Quality P.S. 'Quality' can be vague. But, in general, more content does not imply a better product. For example, Assassin's Creed 1 might have been a better game if it had less content and more effort was put into making the experience a lot less repetitive. Hence why there are zero games in the last 3 years that have had DLC available the week the game released. .... nvm. Eschaton just explained it for you. There's pretty much an entire month after the game goes Gold where they can work on (and more importantly TEST) extra content for DLC or patches. Why do you think most games have a patch on release day, too? In the past, developers would just jump straight into the next project. These days, with digital distribution becoming mainstream, DLC has become a good mini-project to commit a small component of the team to, while the majority starts on the foundations of the next project. But, believe what you want. Either I'm right, or it's just those big, bad developers who invariably work 80-100 hour weeks in the closing months of any AAA development project being greedy.
No you're probably right. No company deliberately releases DLC seperately that could have/should have been in the original game as an intention of generating more revenue on release by getting people to buy a full-priced game AND a $5 addition alongside it on release. And no business is greedy at all. You've convinced me.
|
Think about it guys.
Pages of self-drawn maps of the world as you explore. Think of how cool it would be to compare your psuedo-map to the map of the game once you finish it, after not looking at the actual map once. Every quest you take, you must take notes of what you must do in the Journal and further notes as you continue through the quest. You can use tacks or other forms of temporary marking for current quests on your drawn maps.
Are your bodies ready for the most intense damn experience of your life?
|
On October 29 2011 06:45 IMABUNNEH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 06:36 Bibdy wrote:On October 29 2011 06:31 IMABUNNEH wrote:On October 29 2011 06:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 28 2011 21:48 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 20:55 Excludos wrote:On October 28 2011 08:48 Venality wrote:At first I was thinking of getting the Collector's Edition, but at this point I am not sure. I may just save the extra money it would have been to buy their DLC they are putting out. Man it irritates me that the game isn't even out and they are talking DLC already.... just put it in the game now before it comes out please? Me love you long time if you do.. Extra Credits had an episode about DLC, but I can't find it atm. The reason you're hearing about DLC before the game is even out, is it: Near the end of a production (usually between when the game is done and shipping), there is suddenly a lot of time for the developers where they don't have anything to do. They either jump on a new project, or start working on those DLCs. If they where to put the DLCs in the game, then the game would have to be delayed, and this cycle would last forever. Or, which is the case a lot of the time, it's content that was cut from the game. Prime example would be Deus Ex: HR. They said before they started cutting content, the game would take well over 120 hours to finish. Most games are like this, just not in that extreme. Lots of content is cut from the final game for various reasons. Repackaging this cut content and selling it as "DLC" is a very common tactic for developers. When you cut content from a game, you cut it. You don't built it, then leave it aside to collect dust until it's 'DLC time' and throw it on the web. It's literally not made at all. DLC is always made AFTER the game has gone gold. Whether it was in the original design document for the game or not, it's all built from scratch at that point (besides the re-using of art where appropriate). Content can get cut from a game for many different reasons but the primary three are 1) Budget/resources 2) Time 3) Quality P.S. 'Quality' can be vague. But, in general, more content does not imply a better product. For example, Assassin's Creed 1 might have been a better game if it had less content and more effort was put into making the experience a lot less repetitive. Hence why there are zero games in the last 3 years that have had DLC available the week the game released. .... nvm. Eschaton just explained it for you. There's pretty much an entire month after the game goes Gold where they can work on (and more importantly TEST) extra content for DLC or patches. Why do you think most games have a patch on release day, too? In the past, developers would just jump straight into the next project. These days, with digital distribution becoming mainstream, DLC has become a good mini-project to commit a small component of the team to, while the majority starts on the foundations of the next project. But, believe what you want. Either I'm right, or it's just those big, bad developers who invariably work 80-100 hour weeks in the closing months of any AAA development project being greedy. No you're probably right. No company deliberately releases DLC seperately that could have/should have been in the original game as an intention of generating more revenue on release by getting people to buy a full-priced game AND a $5 addition alongside it on release. And no business is greedy at all. You've convinced me.
Ofc some companies do- that's the whole nature of DLC on disc- but saying that all companies are greedy/all first DLC is from cut content is equally stupid and can be disproven.
|
On October 29 2011 10:08 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +Think about it guys.
Pages of self-drawn maps of the world as you explore. Think of how cool it would be to compare your psuedo-map to the map of the game once you finish it, after not looking at the actual map once. Every quest you take, you must take notes of what you must do in the Journal and further notes as you continue through the quest. You can use tacks or other forms of temporary marking for current quests on your drawn maps. Are your bodies ready for the most intense damn experience of your life?
If I wasn't in school full time and working right now, I would TOTALLY do that. For the people that can spare the time, seems _incredible_
|
On October 29 2011 10:54 Hikko wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:08 Candadar wrote:Think about it guys.
Pages of self-drawn maps of the world as you explore. Think of how cool it would be to compare your psuedo-map to the map of the game once you finish it, after not looking at the actual map once. Every quest you take, you must take notes of what you must do in the Journal and further notes as you continue through the quest. You can use tacks or other forms of temporary marking for current quests on your drawn maps. Are your bodies ready for the most intense damn experience of your life? If I wasn't in school full time and working right now, I would TOTALLY do that. For the people that can spare the time, seems _incredible_
I'm not doing it for the same reason you're not doing it, as well as the fact that I can't draw to save my life and so would constantly get lost or just internally memorize the entire world. I could also see fast-traveling really fucking you over lol.
Also in this mode wouldn't it be realistic for you to be able view maps that you see in the game? Preview builds have confirmed that maps are scattered around the world and the player can look at them.
|
That would only really work if there was a way to disable map, journal and fast travel in the game (or there was a mod to do so). Otherwise it's kinda meh... there's always this temptation to just press the damn button instead, and even if you don't fall for it, the fact that it's there sill distracts from the experience. 
There are such mods for Oblivion by the way.
|
Something my friend just messaged me on Steam saying was, since 99% of us suck at drawing and aren't actual mapmakers, we do something a bit more realistic.
You "map" areas by pointing out geographical markers. General directions to places, and obvious landmarks that help direct you to major areas. Basically, instead of mapping you are taking extensive notes of how to find places.
I personally am going to do this and have a swell damn time.
|
Well, if I didn't have a job and it was summer break, I'd consider doing hardcore Skyrim.
|
On October 29 2011 06:15 Atreides wrote:
Hey, as someone who loves console rpgs but is pretty new to the field (2 years or so) I guess I differ from most in that I generally really like the story-driven ones that people tend to complain about not being open enough. ie. I actually really liked ffxiii and all dragonage. I had never played any of The Elder Scrolls, but the twitch.tv adds for this game got me excited so I went out and bought Oblivion to try and play through before Skyrim came out. Only played one night so far, but while having fun getting used to controls and gameplay and all that stuff, still trying to figure out the story. So some questions.
1) Are the Elder Scrolls games built on previous ones in any way at all? I gather they all take place in the same world at least so it seems like previous game at least have some imput on what you know about whats going on?
2) How long does it take on average to play through the whole "story" of Oblivion if you wander around a moderate amount. (Not speedrunning or anything in the least, just normal play) I basically am curious if its <40 hours or so, or if I have no chance of finishing in a couple weeks.
3) Am I supposed to be constantly switching between bow and arrows and melee weapons depending on what particular baddie is running at me right that second? lol
1) No, although they may reference past events as kind of an Easter egg. It takes place all in the same world, but on different provinces of the empire.
2) The main quest line will usually be between 30-40hrs of game play, not including side quests. Total game content usually will be well over 100 hrs of game play. If you download third party content, the game won't end. Basically, the game doesn't end unless you want it to.
3) If you want. Depends upon how you want to play the game. If you are coming from an FPS background and just want to use whatever weapon you think is cool or fits the particular fight, then that's great. Some people like to role play their characters and only play in a way consistent with their character concept. For example, you may want to play a mage, but you add a story line that he/she is a dropout from the mages guild and has a drug addiction (usually skooma in the elder scrolls) which is insatiable, in which case you may play in such a way that you only use magic, and that you specifically use magic that aids in theft (or if desperate) or murder in order to obtain drugs. So you may never come across baddies. If you do, maybe your character is a coward and runs away (exciting choice, huh?); but you get the point.
Have fun!
|
On October 29 2011 10:08 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +Think about it guys.
Pages of self-drawn maps of the world as you explore. Think of how cool it would be to compare your psuedo-map to the map of the game once you finish it, after not looking at the actual map once. Every quest you take, you must take notes of what you must do in the Journal and further notes as you continue through the quest. You can use tacks or other forms of temporary marking for current quests on your drawn maps. Are your bodies ready for the most intense damn experience of your life?
This actually does sound pretty hardcore, lol.
|
On October 29 2011 11:50 Talin wrote:That would only really work if there was a way to disable map, journal and fast travel in the game (or there was a mod to do so). Otherwise it's kinda meh... there's always this temptation to just press the damn button instead, and even if you don't fall for it, the fact that it's there sill distracts from the experience. There are such mods for Oblivion by the way.
Not really, you can simply choose to not look at them. I'm currently playing through Oblivion without using fast travel. Which is annoying since like the first mission from Chorrol to the place down south (Kvatch?) is a pretty long trek!
I might consider this for Skyrim. Sounds like an awesome fun idea. And even if I just use the ingame map, I doubt I'll use fast travel. It ruins the immersiveness of the games.
|
When the game comes out, those of us that use the hand drawings should make a thread where we mass upload them :D
|
On October 30 2011 01:11 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
When the game comes out, those of us that use the hand drawings should make a thread where we mass upload them :D
If they're being done in some A5 journal that could be a whole mess of stuff!
But then I would totally print off and keep one if someone did one AWESOMELY.
|
On October 30 2011 01:18 IMABUNNEH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 01:11 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
When the game comes out, those of us that use the hand drawings should make a thread where we mass upload them :D If they're being done in some A5 journal that could be a whole mess of stuff! But then I would totally print off and keep one if someone did one AWESOMELY.
That does sound like a lot of fun tbh
Might contribute to such a thread if one was to be created.
Edit: Also:
påogyipuss890åfgp9es9+t9f9pi I want this to come out already T.T
|
what I am gonna do is no fast travel outside of towns. So only fast travel like in Morrowind
|
On October 30 2011 01:11 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
When the game comes out, those of us that use the hand drawings should make a thread where we mass upload them :D
I know for a fact that my drawings are going to suck dick.
Hence why I'm doing the previous suggestion, and in my opinion far more realistic one, of taking notes of geographical landmarks and using that to get around.
Now -that- would be fun.
|
Yeah I pretty much just want a compass. No quest pointers like oblivion, my own "map." If they have a map in the game world on a wall or something I will use that, but it's not going to be nearly detailed enough to do more than give me a sense of scale. I hope someone mods the map, quest pointer (and maybe journal) out.
|
You know, the mapping idea is growing on me. Imagine having to navigate through personal exploration and vague guidances given by NPCs, with none of that silly in-game maps, compasses or quest pointers. NPC guidance, such as "Oh, Randomcave? That's down the southern path for about five minutes, then up the mountainside to the west.", where you'd be forced to explore. Oblivion was a beautiful game, and Skyrim looks to be even more breathtaking, so exploration will anyhow be a very important part of the gameplay for me.
Makes me want to mod the game before I even play it. Remove the silly map and UI map helpers. Anyone want to work with me on that? ;3
|
Hey I remember needing to do something similar (albeit super easy to do) with the old text based RPGs, where you have to choose to go north/south etc.
I think I'll probably end up doing a very simple map. Obviously not adding hills and junk, but trying to get rough directions and junctions between towns, and using a landmark system to assist with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
