FFVII remake coming, old fanbase thinks they own it.



  • http://www.gamespot.com/videos/does-the-final-fantasy-vii-remake-need-a-new-battl/2300-6425461/?comment_page=7#js-message-343443432

    They can't get it into their heads that turnbased rpgs are not getting the same amount of sales that they used to.

    They reference a few indie games, and some low budget games that use turn based like it's still possible to make a triple-A title.

    Now, it may work in east Asia, and may get enough profit out of America to be a decent game, but it won't revitalize the franchise unless they capture the American market again. And they won't do that unless they start competing with American RPGs.

    And, I'm sorry, but an HD upgrade on the game without changing any aspect of it, isn't going to impress anything other than the strict fanboys.

    Posted by Cas18927 - 6 hours ago @Xaade: they are making the remake because the fans asked, if they then go against them and do an action style they'll lose loads of money. You have to be true to the fans who actually care about the game.

    No, they are making the remake because they think they can capitalize on it.

    If you want the same game, it's on sale, in Steam.

    If you want FFVII with more intensity and drama, you won't get that with ATB.

    If you remake exactly FFVII in HD, it's going to look like a crappy turn based Diablo.



  • Who cares? The original's a giant snore. They couldn't possibly make it less interesting or exciting.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The original's a giant snore

    It was entertaining at the time, up against games of its time.

    But it's definitely a snore now, and that has nothing to do with the graphics.

    I still replay FF6.

    And I still find the old characters interesting in an action format like Kingdom Hearts.
    Quite literally, the only reason I played the game, was to be immersed in the FF franchise in an action format. The Disney aspects kept me cringing.



  • I still enjoy whacking my party over their own heads in FF2. Man, this thing had a leveling system so broken it was hilarious.

    Anyway. Yes, they can change the battle system, but that would alienate the old fanbase, and people who actually do want the turn-based slog, while those who look for a more action-based system have different, better games to play than a like 15-year-old game.


  • SockDev

    easy solution. you make the system selectable.

    FFVI did that (at least in the GBA release, but i'm pretty sure it's in the others as well)



  • Well, it's easy when you have ATB vs. straight turn-based, since they're mostly similar.

    Button-mashing vs. turns would be a lot harder to both implement and balance.


  • SockDev

    still doable.



  • Maybe. But it's almost guaranteed they'll get it wrong and one of the modes will be completely broken.



  • @xaade said:

    Now, it may work in east Asia, and may get enough profit out of America to be a decent game, but it won't revitalize the franchise unless they capture the American market again. And they won't do that unless they start competing with American RPGs.

    They have FF15 and its button-mashing AI-partner assisted battle system for that.

    If, after the disappointment of FF13, SE screws with FF7 to the point where it soils its legacy, then SE will permanently alienate the remaining fanbase that forms their in-built guaranteed sales audience. This is exactly the reason no-one at SE dared to white-list a full-on remake of FF7 before and why we got spinoff games that revisited the same setting instead.

    The fact that they're doing it now, after the FF13 bomb, means one of two things: either they think they're capable of nailing it to perfection, or they're desperate. Sadly, I'm banking on #2.

    As for ATB being 'stale'; you can spruce it up in different ways:

    Make the scene more dynamic than two opposing lines of player characters and enemies, for one. There's no reason your party couldn't break formation and go with hit-and-run. Work in dynamic parrying, dodging and glancing hits on either side (no actual damage; cinematic purpose only) and suddenly you've got a modern take on ATB that looks a hell of a lot more pumped up.

    Add some actual formation play. (i.e. break formation to increase dodge, huddle up to protect a centre mage, etc.) instead of the stale front-row / back-row concept. Add an option that instructs your party to move into a pincer and achieve a damage multiplier against an enemy. Etc.



  • @Ragnax said:

    'stale'

    And sometimes, stale is good. I personally like turn-based RPGs exactly because they don't require that much of attention span, so I can pick them up when I'm tired and just want to shut my brain down for a bit.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    And sometimes, stale is good.

    In this context; I agree. That is also why the quotes are there. ;)


  • :belt_onion:

    @Ragnax said:

    The fact that they're doing it now, after the FF13 bomb, means one of two things: either they think they're capable of nailing it to perfection, or they're desperate.

    oh they're definitely desperate.
    they failed at making an mmo version of the FF franchise to be worth a shit, twice!

    the fanboys are lucky this isn't planned to be MMOFFVII failure #3



  • @xaade said:

    No, they are making the remake because they think they can capitalize on it.

    Absolutely.

    @xaade said:

    If you want the same game, it's on sale, in Steam.

    And the community already provides HD upgrades to a reasonable extent (as reasonable as a mid-1990's engine without skeletal deformation can support).

    SE has been dead to me ever since they ruined X with X-2.

    XII is a good game if you take "Final Fantasy" out of the title. Only two* of the playable characters were interesting (and horribly underdeveloped). Otherwise, it's rather bland.

    *Balthier and Fran, of course.


  • SockDev

    @Groaner said:

    X-2

    To date, the only FF I've ever played. I got quite a long way through it too; found it rather enjoyable. But then that might have had something to do with the character designs…



  • Maybe the solution is they make a RPG where you can actually build your character/party from scratch and then give them a huge open-world to explore where they can go any place at any time, and then remove the story that's so boring that you watch it for literally 90 minutes and absolutely nothing happens and not give any of the women creepy spider-eyes and basically just make Wizardry 9.

    Fuck JRPGs. Worst genre.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Fuck JRPGs

    Was about to point out how your suggestions boiled down to making it a western style one.



  • Good thing I spelled-out my joke in anticipation of my audience being stupid!



  • Didn't japs make like a bunch of supposedly decent Wizardry games that were never localized?

    At some point I even got one of them with a fan translation, but then I saw those anime faces and... just couldn't.



  • The Japanese have kept the Wizardry brand alive longer than Sir-Tech in the US, yes.

    However, they've never evolved the genre. They just keep remaking Wizardry I over and over again, which is insane. I actually have one of those games on Steam: Elimage Gothic. I found it nearly unplayable. (Being a PSP port didn't help the situation, either.)



  • What if they copied and pasted the whole thing, but they replaced the game engine with Discourse?



  • Yes. What if that happened. What if.



  • Well, it'd probably be more interesting, because Discourse bugs are at least a conversation topic.



  • @Groaner said:

    SE has been dead to me ever since they ruined X with X-2.

    Actually I think I've just matured past SE's way of telling stories.

    FF4 was a little too cliche, but then again that was after I played a bunch of games that copied from them.
    FF6 however, that game still stands on its own, today. It generated some unique characters that still stick with me.

    But when I think back on FF7, I'm thinking stuff like.
    Cloud was annoying as hell, and made me feel like a 'shipper' but replace a wanted relationship with having balls.
    Barret got old really fast.
    Tifa got old really fast.
    Arith/s/whatever seemed interesting enough, then dies.

    XIII was actually really awesome character development.
    And Vincent, I just wanted to know more about him.

    Sephiroth was only interesting if I treat him like this. He was just a puppet that Jenovah was cloned into. Everything Seph does that is awesome, is actually Jenovah. Basically Jenovah wants to control the lifestream to eat it, and instead of getting absorbed into it like all other life, has found a way to isolate from it, as Sephiroth's personality. Advent Children just made it all the more obvious, even though no one seems to realize it. The Seph that comes out of the Seph clone, only happens once the Seph clone activates Jenovah.

    So basically the whole story is only interesting, if I project my own conspiracy theory onto it, and only two minor characters actually have good character development.

    @Groaner said:

    XII is a good game if you take "Final Fantasy" out of the title. Only two* of the playable characters were interesting (and horribly underdeveloped). Otherwise, it's rather bland.

    No, XII actually has better storytelling than VII, by a longshot.

    IFF, you ignore the two starter characters and treat them like a camera for the story.
    And, you realize that the real mistake they've made, is waiting until you don't care about a character anymore, to advance their development. All the characters in XII are just scenery until they are used. That's not how you keep a player engaged in the story. But if you take the points in the game that matter, the characters are much more interesting than you realize.



  • I can use formatting tools to make my text appear more meaningful and also to confuse the fuck out of everyone.



  • @Ragnax said:

    They have FF15 and its button-mashing AI-partner assisted battle system for that.

    Oh, fuck's sake, is that what they've done?
    I was hoping for DMC in a FF universe. Why.... dammit... why can't they just make an action game?

    @Ragnax said:

    Make the scene more dynamic than two opposing lines of player characters and enemies, for one. There's no reason your party couldn't break formation and go with hit-and-run.

    You mean like FF13

    @Ragnax said:

    Work in dynamic parrying, dodging and glancing hits on either side (no actual damage; cinematic purpose only) and suddenly you've got a modern take on ATB that looks a hell of a lot more pumped up.

    Oh, so make it even more cinematic, but instead of having it mean anything, just make it a miss fest.

    @Ragnax said:

    Add some actual formation play. (i.e. break formation to increase dodge, huddle up to protect a centre mage, etc.) instead of the stale front-row / back-row concept. Add an option that instructs your party to move into a pincer and achieve a damage multiplier against an enemy. Etc.

    I agree. Chrono Trigger was an awesome game. It still holds to this day.


    But that's not what they do.

    Hell, even FF13 had a pseudo line. Except they gave AoE radiuses. Except they didn't let you control how far apart your characters were from each other, making AoEs have a built in miss chance based on hell if I ever figured out what.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Maybe the solution is they make a RPG where you can actually build your character/party from scratch and then give them a huge open-world to explore where they can go any place at any time, and then remove the story that's so boring that you watch it for literally 90 minutes and absolutely nothing happens and not give any of the women creepy spider-eyes and basically just make Wizardry 9.Final Fantasy 1

    For certain definitions of "from scratch", "huge", and "story".



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    For certain definitions of "from scratch", "huge", and "story".

    Yes, the wrong definitions of all of those.

    Final Fantasy was a charming attempt to make an RPG on an NES given memory and controller constraints, but even at the time it came out it paled in comparison to real CRPGs.

    From that point on, JRPGs split off and went in entirely the wrong direction and have been shit every since. And now every time there's a Gamebryo/Creation Engine game released, we all have to read the article about how Japanese don't "get it" because they're all scared little woodland creatures who can't play a game if it doesn't completely hand-hold you at all stages and tell you exactly where to go and what to do. And if the fact that you can't just walk around and explore isn't bad enough, the 45-minute long "cutscenes" consisting of pointless railroading dialog will finish anybody off. (Why can't "Cloud" or whatever you name him just say, "give me my fucking money!" and leave? I didn't want to talk to any of those people. It's like a million times worse than Bioware games.)



  • Besides, the whole concept behind the JRPG genre doesn't scale to a multiplayer game very well... ;P

    (Fired up NWN this weekend, hopped on the server I usually play on, and found my level 1 druid having to chase down the leader of the city guard and get her to come over and raise the fishmonger after he avenged said fishmonger's death at the hands of a sewers-rogue NPC...)



  • FFXII got close, but still held your hand. It wouldn't have taken much to turn it into a game that allowed true open exploration, by simply not requiring the various quest lines to be accomplished in order. I have no problem with world changing events that occur in a certain order in a CRPG.

    FFXIII experimented with open world, but made it a wasteland with no population and very little to interact with. There was a story to the open world part, but so thin that Destiny's story would make it blush. It was mainly there for people to grind and provide for FFVII weapon like challenges.

    All of them become open world exploration at some point, but only at the point where the world is static and fixed until you advance the story again.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    From that point on, JRPGs split off and went in entirely the wrong direction and have been shit every since.

    JRPGs strongly favor a fixed narrative over exploration, the idea being that it allows the telling of a more compelling and coherent story. CRPGs favor exploration as the vehicle and treat story as something secondary that is grown organically in the background.

    They're completely different genres that were just awkwardly bunched together because some moron attached the wrong label to it way back when. The RPG moniker was stuck to the genre back in the day because it implements leveling, character attributes/statistics and dice rolls for battle that mimic what CRPGs do. The games didn't exactly fit within the bounds of an action, adventure, sports or puzzle game, so their heavy reliance on stats got them dumped into the RPG bin.

    It doesn't make sense to hate on the entire genre because of that stupid mistake. Mind you: either type of game can work well or backfire within its own genre as well.

    For instance: FF13 is a good example of too strong a push in the direction of the narrative and so little left to play outside of the 'on rails' battles that constitute some 90% of the game, that you can hardly call it a game anymore.

    In contrast, Chrono Trigger (a decidedly japanese RPG) is still driven by a fixed, core narrative, but it was well-balanced with exploration and discovery and to this day is counted amongst the favorite games of many gamers.

    When it comes to CRPGs, the choices of excellent games that hit all the marks are many. The Elder Scrolls ranks top, as do the older Bioware titles. They offer great diversity and exploration and use core world-building and lore as a solid foundation for the game world.

    However, CRPGs are not without their black sheep either. Infact, one need look no further than the Elder Scrolls games themselves. Their open-endedness and the staggering amount of interactions and interconnections everything has, also leads to lots and lots of bugs and game-breaking events. The sheer amount of content in them and the way they are arranged as an open world also quickly leads to repetition when diving into another clone of generic dungeon/cave/crypt theme X for the umpteenth time.

    Also, for all their effort to present a world that breathes and is alive, the actual cities in the Elder Scrolls games are no bigger than small townships. Look at something like the Imperial City in Oblivion. Can you honestly claim it is more alive than, say, FF9's Alexandria?
    (Let me answer that for you: No you can't. You'd be lying through your teeth...)

    That's the trade-off with making everything open and accessible. You can't hand-wave away any parts of the world, like you can with the fixed scenery of a more narrative-driven game.

    Also:

    @blakeyrat said:

    And if the fact that you can't just walk around and explore isn't bad enough, the 45-minute long "cutscenes" consisting of pointless railroading dialog will finish anybody off.

    I'm sorry; were we talking about JRPGs or Metal Gear Solid?



  • @Ragnax said:

    JRPGs strongly favor a fixed narrative over exploration, the idea being that it allows the telling of a more compelling and coherent story.

    AKA boring.

    @Ragnax said:

    CRPGs favor exploration as the vehicle and treat story as something secondary that is grown organically in the background.

    The story is created by the player as they go through the game. Not written by some awful hack who thinks 45 minutes of pointless chatter at a bar is good storytelling.

    @Ragnax said:

    They're completely different genres that were just awkwardly bunched together because some moron attached the wrong label to it way back when.

    No; because they both grew out of the old 1980s CRPG genre, titles like the original Wizardry (which was wildly popular in Japan, as discussed upthread.) They diverged early, but the source for both is the same.

    @Ragnax said:

    It doesn't make sense to hate on the entire genre because of that stupid mistake.

    Maybe not; I played Chrono Trigger and enjoyed it back in the day.

    @Ragnax said:

    When it comes to CRPGs, the choices of excellent games that hit all the marks are many. The Elder Scrolls ranks top, as do the older Bioware titles. They offer great diversity and exploration and use core world-building and lore as a solid foundation for the game world.

    Bioware games are still too fucking talky. I tried playing the original Dragon Age Origins and that's, what, 2006? And I was still bored to DEATH of all the pointless chatter. Between the combat tutorial and the first time you actually see combat in the actual game, I literally forgot the controls. That's how long the pointless chatter was. Christ.

    Mass Effect was better about the chatter, but now you're railroaded to shit and back and none of your character choices matter. (Despite the game's marketing telling you otherwise.)

    Bioware games are more like JRPGs than CRPGs.

    @Ragnax said:

    Their open-endedness and the staggering amount of interactions and interconnections everything has, also leads to lots and lots of bugs and game-breaking events.

    Game-breaking bugs in a CRPG?! Say it ain't so!

    ... oh wait, game-breaking bugs is as foundational an element as, say, elves. Ultima IV one of the earliest and greatest of CRPGs forgot to include the clue to one of the final puzzles making it impossible to complete without cheating in some fashion.

    @Ragnax said:

    Also, for all their effort to present a world that breathes and is alive, the actual cities in the Elder Scrolls games are no bigger than small townships.

    And the Matterhorn at Disneyland isn't as large as the actual mountain. Gasp!

    @Ragnax said:

    Look at something like the Imperial City in Oblivion. Can you honestly claim it is more alive than, say, FF9's Alexandria?

    1. I've never played Final Fantasy 9.

    2. Neither are alive; they're video games. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "alive" here.

    @Ragnax said:

    You can't hand-wave away any parts of the world, like you can with the fixed scenery of a more narrative-driven game.

    Why is hand-waving away parts of the world a desirable thing to do?

    @Ragnax said:

    I'm sorry; were we talking about JRPGs or Metal Gear Solid?

    I recently tried to play Final Fantasy VII, lauded by morons as the "best" of the Final Fantasy games, and OMG was it a snore.



  • @tarunik said:

    Besides, the whole concept behind the JRPG genre doesn't scale to a multiplayer game very well...

    Bamco's Tales of — series manages to pull off a JRPG on a small local cooperative multiplayer scale very well, actually. Their battle system is a real-time controlled brawler arena, which lends itself very well to local coop. Remote coop would probably still be feasible that way, atleast among friends. Playing with anons would not work, because one player would still be in charge of movement out of battle and of progressing the narrative.

    Scale up even further to MMO and things just fall apart. You cannot really pull off JRPG narrative and characterization at the level of an MMO without horribly compromising both the game mechanics and the narrative and characterization as you try to marry them together.
    (see: White Knight Chronicles ... such a damn shame)

    An exploration-focused CRPG lacks that binding narrative but has other factors that limit how well it can be pushed to MMO scale. There is an awful problem with playing any kind of real role when everything you do in the game is based on fetch-quests, monster hunting, etc. and generic NPC responses. Exploration also becomes severly limited when areas become level-gated and those same fetch-quests send you all over on to pre-determined dungeon instances, instructing you to follow a compass blip. (And for heaven's sakes don't you dare stop to sniff the roses when your party could be grinding for XP or drops already!)

    MMOs are just a completely different beast.



  • @Ragnax said:

    Tales of

    It was good in 2d.

    But now they have some kind of 2d locking mechanism, that you manually unlock to roam, then lock again for combat, making the combat VERY VERY clunky. All because they want spherical AoEs.

    If they focused on linear AoEs, and gave you a dodge mechanic, it would work like every other fighter game has already figured out.

    Then it would be no different than say, roaming camera lock, just at a perpendicular angle.

    But no, they have this clunky mechanic that is just fake difficulty.

    3d killed Tales of... but only because they weren't willing to adapt to it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I recently tried to play Final Fantasy VII, lauded by morons as the "best" of the Final Fantasy games, and OMG was it a snore.

    That's ... well ... that's because it kind of is, honestly.

    • Cloud is the emotional equivalent of a brick; full stop.
    • Barrett is a stereotypical pumped up black dude for most of the game, to the point where it is painful.
    • Tifa is ... well I have no idea what her motivations or character really are? She grew up in a remote mountain town where she accidentally met Zack and now gets him mixed up with Cloud, because Cloud has part of Zack's memories? She's just there to be a contemporary link to Cloud's origin and nothing more.
    • Cait-Sith is an anonymous Shinra-corporation employee of which you get to know fuck-all. (Token quirky side-character.)
    • etc. etc.

    The two most interesting characters are Aerith and Vincent. The first because the entire narrative pretty much is set up around her, but then she dies half-way through the game and suddenly everyone cannot shut up about what a saint she was to the point where it becomes ludicrous and destroys the character. The second is interesting only because of his mysterious past that you are teased about but which is never fucking expanded with anything really solid in the damn game.

    The story itself makes no effort to masquarade itself as anything more than a simple 'chase the villain' plot. No really; that's the whole damn game, apart from the introductory chapter in Midgard and the occasional 'megalomaniac megacorporation' trope serving as a mid-game segue between the 'chase the villain' sequences.

    FF9 is better. Much, much better. Then again, it actually devotes entire arcs of the story to smaller parts of the player party going off to fullfill different objectives 'in parallel', giving everyone a chance to shine and develop.



  • @Ragnax said:

    That's ... well ... that's because it kind of is, honestly.

    I know it is. I just said it was. What the hell is wrong with you people?



  • @xaade said:

    But now they have some kind of 2d locking mechanism, that you manually unlock to roam, then lock again for combat, making the combat VERY VERY clunky. All because they want spherical AoEs.

    Not in the later 3D games. The Xillia games and the Graces games don't lock you onto a 2D line like the Symphonia games did. Turning sideways makes you strafe around the selected enemy in lock-on mode and double tapping makes you dodge or roll sideways.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I know it is. I just said it was. What the hell is wrong with you people?

    You didn't read the last paragraph, did you? You know; where I gave an example of another game in the series that doesn't devolve into a snore-fest?



  • @Ragnax said:

    never fucking expanded with anything really solid in the damn game.

    Oh no, they fucked that up too. In a different game, much later.

    It's ironic to me how Metal Gear Rising expands on Raiden, much better than the FF7 expanded universe expands on Vincent.

    They should leave Vincent to short montages of OMGWTFBBQ awesomeness.

    That's what he's good at.

    The character you wish your character was.



  • @Ragnax said:

    Not in the later 3D games. The Xillia games and the Graces games don't lock you onto a 2D line like the Symphonia games did. Turning sideways makes you strafe around the selected enemy in lock-on mode and double tapping makes you dodge or roll sideways.

    Then I bought the wrong games then.

    I tried to play Symphonia, and decided, fuck this franchise.

    Guess I'll have to take a second look.



  • Ragnax you have a microphone?

    You should get on Skype and co-commentate on a JRPG with me.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I know it is. I just said it was. What the hell is wrong with you people?

    Heaven forbid anybody should agree with you, and elaborate on why they agree.



  • If blakey says it first, then there's no need for someone else to explain why. It is written.



  • @xaade said:

    It is written.

    Note: the bolded part doesn't refer to the why.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @xaade said:
    It is written.

    Note: the bolded part doesn't refer to the why.

    Blakey wrote it. It is Revealed Truth. Why is irrelevant.





  • What point are you trying to make with that image?



  • @Ragnax said:

    Scale up even further to MMO and things just fall apart. You cannot really pull off JRPG narrative and characterization at the level of an MMO without horribly compromising both the game mechanics and the narrative and characterization as you try to marry them together.

    I was actually starting at an intermediate scale -- the 32/64/96 players of a typical NWN1 server -- and JRPG style linear play fits poorly at that scale as well. I agree with you that linear-story play is very poorly suited for MMOs as well, though.

    @Ragnax said:

    An exploration-focused CRPG lacks that binding narrative but has other factors that limit how well it can be pushed to MMO scale. There is an awful problem with playing any kind of real role when everything you do in the game is based on fetch-quests, monster hunting, etc. and generic NPC responses. Exploration also becomes severly limited when areas become level-gated and those same fetch-quests send you all over on to pre-determined dungeon instances, instructing you to follow a compass blip. (And for heaven's sakes don't you dare stop to sniff the roses when your party could be grinding for XP or drops already!)

    That's because you're making the themepark assumption -- that the game (and by extension, the game developer) is responsible for generating content. What you need to do is transfer that responsibility to the players, with mechanics that leverage player-versus-player conflict as a content driver and stay orthogonal even in the face of emergent player behavior instead of trying to force players down a predetermined solution path. Furthermore, make useful specialization swift but diversification vast and perfection difficult, and dissociate classes from characters by mapping specialization to equipment selection -- this allows newbs to pick something they want to do and get useful at it quickly, while providing ample challenge for veterans, whether it's eking the last 0.1% of performance out of a build or stepping into facets of gameplay that they have yet to explore.

    Combine this with open-world exploration, and you have a powerful driver of emergent narrative...and one that has been largely shown to work, albeit in a game that has its roots just as much in the 4X genre as it ever could in CRPGs...

    @Ragnax said:

    MMOs are just a completely different beast.

    There's nothing stopping an open-world, exploration-driven MMO in the vein of the best traits of TES and other such games from being built -- recent efforts in the MMO genre are beginning to tilt in that direction, even, now that everyone's grown utterly sick of WoW/EQ clone #9871394714141279481248.

    Filed under: player created fetch quests, anyone?



  • Even open ended worlds can end up being just rails, that are loosely coupled with a few requirements like finishing a particular subrail before another set of subrails is available.

    Now I know how much you love ESO, but Skyrim isn't all that different. It's just that its subrails are even more loose in their coupling.



  • @xaade said:

    Even open ended worlds can end up being just rails, that are loosely coupled with a few requirements like finishing a particular subrail before another set of subrails is available.

    Uh ok?

    @xaade said:

    Now I know how much you love ESO, but Skyrim isn't all that different. It's just that its subrails are even more loose in their coupling.

    So? What point are you making?

    It's like saying every drop of water is the same, therefore the Amazon River can't be interesting at all.

    Games like that are called "emergent" because the desired behavior emerges from hundreds of simpler rule-sets.

    You're also ignoring the huge elephant in the room: a perfectly legitimate way to play Skyrim is to not participate in any quests at all.



  • @tarunik said:

    [snip yet another Eve Online ad]

    1. That doesn't work in single player. Although it could work with dynamic enough AI.
    2. FFXI did it first, with AI as a real automated faction, and it worked. Except the rest of the game sucked.
    3. All you really ended up with is a box of rules no more advanced than D&D. It just happens that computers calculate in realtime.
    4. You're not leveraging the capabilities of computers to produce AI.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.