Hard to say. It depends on what kind of programs/robots we were. It might be that certain percentage of us are our creaters, it might be that we got rid of our creators, it might be that there’s only one creator…

Too many possibilities.

1. Are you AI/bot?
2. Wall of text = incomprehensible, would not read/5.
3. It’s rarely about how good the devices are, but how much they cost + Apple’s two-faced moral model that makes people oppose/reject it.

Ah, I see. You’d want more diversity or substance to the dungeons, not length, or puzzles.

Would you exchange it for less dungeons? I mean, smaller number of them, but each distinctive?

And if so, how would you predict it’d change the dynamics of the game? Because now dungeons are pretty much “loot trips”, or locations required to solve some quests only. You know, "Oh, I need me some good weaponry, I’m gonna raid a few tombs and see where it’s going to get me.

(Asking as a worldbuilder).

What would you require of plain, simple dungeons?

I honestly don’t get it.

What we’re seeing in Bethesda’s design are more and more vibrant worlds - modern NPCs walk around, sit on whatever benches they see, react to day/night cycles, use the objects around them, comment on how you’re looking, what you’re wearing (or not), hear about your exploits. Not every NPC is ready to break to you his sad story worth a doctorate in psychology, but which one does?

Even in games one may consider deep you will still find shopkeepers with same lines, or NPCs standing there, in the same spot, no matter whether it rains or not, ready to give you what is essentially a FedEx quest, no matter how many sentences they are going to express it with. You can break a fight in many deep games, and nobody around will mind it - attack a villager in Skyrim and guards and other denizens won’t take this shit kindly.

Heck, the lore is vast, even since Daggerfall or Morrowind you had in-game books to find and read, stories to pursue, myths and legends to learn.

The style, the tone, the predictability are things that definitely might use more attention, but I definitely wouldn’t call it a shallow design.

Only one hour?

HEATHEN! PHILISTINE! 😉

Yet your argument still ignores all nuance. (…)

There are no nuances needed to be acknowledged in this specific distinction. People playing in good faith, WILL try to overcome any obstacles according to their experience, skills and maturity. People who don’t, will invent problems and actively search for them rather than focus on solutions. Neither needs Session #0.

good group doesn’t need session zero and bad group isn’t helped by it

It’s absolutely wrong take on the dillema. GOOD group doesn’t have to play in good faith - they are good players, experienced veterans, that know the art of role playing well. But they don’t have to put all their skills into good outcome. They may, for many reasons try to undermine the experience, break the game, test the ruleset for weaknesses, focus on one singe aspect of the game (for example, on combat) rather than on the whole adventure. And the other way around - bad gamers, clueless and inexperienced might still try to save their game, make the best of it.

As you can see, what you’re discussing is wildly different to what I’ve been talking about.

Now you’re just doing some pedantic backpedaling, as though it changes the fact that your argument hinges on a false binary.

From where I sit - it’s you who didn’t think through your position and when asked about details became passively-aggressive. Usually a strong hint that you feel you’re/were wrong.

And it’s ironic that you simultaneously accuse me of lacking nuances and simultaneously of being “too nuanced”. 😬

OSIRIS is pretty much what you described, Starbourne 2 I know only from gameplays on YT, but I’m planning to try it “later”. 😉

In the meantime, I already think about spaceships I’m gonna build in Starfield.

I’m conflicted about Ulfric. One the one hand, he seems to be archetypical liberator, revolutionary against tyranny. So are his followers - people who want to live according to their own ways, enjoying life, minding their own business…

But things he does and the state of the city under his control are abhorrent. How can a liberator not care about children starving on the streets of his citadel? What wrong did all those non-humans did to him to deserve the scorn?

…this seems like an argument for what you were talking about. Bethesda may not provide deep, elaborate, very difficult stories, but by all means, they are memorable and they feature SOME depth.

A game shouldn’t be considered “rock-solid” because a ton of dedicated and skilled fans make the game fun to play.

Why not?

Also, not “fun to play”. FUNNIER…

The game isn’t rock-solid, the modders are.

Do their mods run without the game? And while at that, are all mods good, stable, logical, lore-friendly, etc, etc?

The entire showerthought must be in the title

Your question belongs more to Ask Lemmy or No Stupid Questions I think.

In addition: what appeared earlier on this planet? Kids or cartoons?

I prefer Fallout: Tactics to vanilla F:NV.

If not for DLCs that offer something wildly different in their own separate maps, I’d call it the worst Fallout game I’ve been playing…

I don’t get that “shallow” part.

In Bethesda’s worlds there’s always something going on, something new to discover, something new to learn… Providing you put an effort to pursue that. These games don’t force themselves upon the player, they leave helluva room for breathing, caring about whatever small goals you may set upon yourself, but that’s not “bad”, isn’t it?

I never understood the hate Bethesda’s open world sandboxes get. Give them a few months of time for patching & modding and they become rock-solid games to enjoy for decades. I don’t expect Starfield to be anything less and I hope it will be far more than that.

By the way… OSIRIS: New Dawn and SpaceBourne 2 - have you tried either?

I never said that individuals are “good/bad”. I said they approach the game with either good faith or bad faith, which is radically different to what you’re talking about.

If the group consists of people who come there in good faith and are determined to have fun, no Session 0 is needed. Whatever problems will arise on the way, are going to be dealt with in mature way.

And if the group features bad faith actors, then no amount of discussion prior to the game will prevent a disaster from happening.

Same here. People often complain on Jackson. As far as I’m concerned, the man did pretty good job given how massive the challenge of Tolkien’s adaptation was.

When I hear that people complain on Hobbit’s length and making it a trilogy, I like to joke, that it’s not a problem. the problem is that Jackson didn’t have budget, vision and time to make each part of LotR a trilogy. 😉

I agree. Ditto for Hobbit. As an example: all those scenes where characters just walk and advertise New Zealand’s landscape are important to understand just how much the road was taken, how much of an effort it was and how beautiful the world is, thus worth saving.

Try these tricks (providing they are applicable!):

• Lower down the number of enemies under your control, but make them stronger. This way, you won’t have to deal with so many pawns.
• Don’t force your NPCs to fight to death. Assume that once, say 25% of your pawns are wiped out, their leader halts the fight and asks to parlay, or that if 75% of them/their leader go to the ground, the rest escapes.
• Tucker’s Kobolds.
• If a combat action leads to multiple dice rolls one after another, roll all of the dice at once - this speeds up the game.
• Use combat managers/helpers - Excel file, dedicated software, whatever helps you in math, use it.
• If the combat becomes too overwhelming, introduce some unsuspected elements. Sudden earthquake, volcano eruption, castle falling down, incoming of a truly powerful enemy, etc. Have some good in-game explanation for such an event!