Whether you prefer that or not is up to you, but I've put a lot more hours in NV than I have FO1 and 2 combined. Combat was entirely dicebased, with little room for player skill. Simply make "better" games? Better how? In FO1 and 2, you certainly couldn't build your own settlements. Look at how much the word 'retro' shows up. Indie games - particularly platformers - tend to rely on this so much it's almost unreal. Older games, however, gain the benefit of nostalgia so thick you can cut it like cake. In commercial games we don't get this luxury so we have to keep rolling the dice to find the game that "we are looking for".Īs an adult, you tend towards being less easily amused than you were as a kid. I think this is one of the reasons why indie gaming succeeded.
This simple feature we have been looking for for 3 games. That it makes the in-game objects in the story tangible, adjustable, more valuable. One in-game building system in the newest Fallout game and we are all sold. Isn't technology improving? Can't games support more variables now with new processors and memory technologies? Why not just make. Something like looking for the first person you loved in every new partner you have afterwards. The only reason I can put up with modern RPG's is that I keep finding myself searching for the things that I enjoyed when I first played RPG games when I was little. Is this a latest trend that aims to make modern games brief and disposible so that customers can keep buying new hypes? Without mods they're not really anything.
What's the lure that the old games have that I can't catch with the new ones? One (at most two) playthroughs and I'm done mostly.
0 kommentar(er)
