Elder Scrolls Why Morrowind is a bad RPG

[luj1]

There isn't much replay value to the game. That is why.

I dont know how much you played Morrowind but you are very wrong. Last time I played I found a new cave right under my nose, just next to Seyda Neen (starting town). 15 years after release. And I probably replayed the game 5-10 times over the years. Likewise, there are still guilds I haven't joined. Not finished, joined. I haven't even finished Tribunal or Bloodmoon.

 

[madhouse]

Why don't you retards just go play a game with a simpler story that's easier to understand like Gothic?

Gothic is the stronger game. Even thought it's an action RPG. Even though it has gay voice acting. Even though the game is quite simplistic and the story is much, much simpler. We rate games by gameplay, not by now how many daydreams you had when you read a few in game stories about Vivec. Wankery over lore ( it has great lore ) and intellectual pretensions is not enough to make a good game.

There isn't much replay value to the game. That is why.

I dont know how much you played Morrowind but you are very wrong. Last time I played I found a new cave right under my nose, just next to Seyda Neen (starting town). 15 years after release. And I probably replayed the game 5-10 times over the years. Likewise, there are still guilds I haven't joined. Not finished, joined. I haven't even finished Tribunal or Bloodmoon.

I played it for like a month straight when I first got through it and I was extremely obsessive about it. It was for a long time my favourite game. I've attempted several replays over the years without much success. I always wind up reading some books, realising the game is boring and that there's nothing worth seeing in yonder that Daedric ruin I missed the last time. There's loads of shit like some caves out in bumfuck nowhere, but the problem is they don't have anything interesting in them 99% of the time. What you're doing is an absolute waste of time and I've gathered more enjoyment out of masturbation. At least in the way I see things.

 

[luj1]

I played it for like a month straight

It was for a long time my favourite game.

And then I masturbated.

Amazing attention span (and lifestyle) mate. Why don't you and rusty stream your video game adventures, but pick something simple and "easy to understand" that wont overstimulate you with bright colors or loud noises.

 

[madhouse]

I played it for like a month straight

It was for a long time my favourite game.

And then I masturbated.

Amazing attention span (and lifestyle) mate. Why don't you and rusty stream your video game adventures, but pick something simple and "easy to understand" that wont overstimulate you with bright colors or loud noises.

I can sense your asshole burning, put some ointment on it laddy.

 

[Sigourn]

Morrowind was never intended to have half, or even a third, of its entire content completed in a single playthrough, but unfortunately has become the recipient of unfounded criticism from a few Codexers who seem to think that an RPG must force them to stop playing (or to continue with the main quest rather than explore further side content), thereby deluding themselves into claiming they have discovered a flaw in the game when the fault lies in themselves. Rather than complain about being overleveled and overpowered, they should have completed the main quest with their first character and then started a second (and eventually third) playthrough.

I'm very critical of the idea that "experiencing the game's content" constitutes a "wrong way" to play the game. Abusing alchemy and then complaining the game is easy? Sure, a wrong way to play the game. Using console commands and then complaining that there's no challenge? Again, definitely. Experiencing the content and complaining that you run out of any challenge once you complete 30% of it? Sorry, that's on the game, not me.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Morrowind had educated people on board, Rolston wrote SF, Kirkbride studied art and comparative religion in college (back when video game design degrees didn't exist). Best creative duo Bethesda ever had.

More importantly, Ken Rolston had extensive experience at designing actual RPG products:

 

[thesheeep]

Morrowind was never intended to have half, or even a third, of its entire content completed in a single playthrough, but unfortunately has become the recipient of unfounded criticism from a few Codexers who seem to think that an RPG must force them to stop playing (or to continue with the main quest rather than explore further side content), thereby deluding themselves into claiming they have discovered a flaw in the game when the fault lies in themselves. Rather than complain about being overleveled and overpowered, they should have completed the main quest with their first character and then started a second (and eventually third) playthrough.

I'm very critical of the idea that "experiencing the game's content" constitutes a "wrong way" to play the game. Abusing alchemy and then complaining the game is easy? Sure, a wrong way to play the game. Using console commands and then complaining that there's no challenge? Again, definitely. Experiencing the content and complaining that you run out of any challenge once you complete 30% of it? Sorry, that's on the game, not me.

That's probably (one of the reasons) why they implemented level scaling in Oblivion afterwards.

After all, if challenges adjust to your level, you never run out of challenges, right?
It could be done in a way that actually works if your goal really is that the player should generally be in an area of level-adequate challenges. I don't think that should be a goal to begin with in open world games, but that's not the point here.
Too bad they just implemented in such a naive and terrible way that it became a meme for eternity and still (by the time of Fallout 4) haven't quite figured out how to pull it off (though admittedly F4 is lightyears better in its implementation than Oblivion).

 

[MWaser]

To relate to some game comparisons that were put in this thread:

IMO Morrowind is one of the few western RPGs I've played with a genuinely great story, and funnily enough, there's hardly any "choice and consequence" in its development. Either you fail the main quest, take the backpath, or do it as intended. A stark contrast from something like New Vegas', which never really kept my attention. And that's because Morrowind's main quest has a build-up and a payoff. No such thing in New Vegas: once you join a faction you receive a random list of tasks that bear little connection with each other (and only serve a greater goal, which is to strengthen a given faction).

In terms of New Vegas story/writing comparison, it's not so much that New Vegas has a "bad" or necessarily "weak" story, but it has a very direct one. In terms of regular progression, New Vegas has a great initial build up (mystery of why you were shot, investigation, getting in touch and learning of the factions, the whole anticipation of New Vegas Strip itself), but once you actually unveil the mystery, there's not much keeping you invested because, as Sigour said, you go into a checklist of actions until the game ends. New Vegas' strengths lie mostly in individual writing for any given quest and/or good characters therein. It's highly entertaining writing/story wise at the 'current moment' aspect by having any given event be somewhat interesting, but not really leaving you with much to look forwards to long-term, nor does it feel that good to think back to it most of the time.

Morrowind is practically the opposite of that entire paradigm in its writing. Individual quests are usually pretty uninteresting (while there's still a number that has some noticeable merit). What would make Morrowind "impressive" in a writing retard is that compared to most video game writing, actually thinking more about it and retrospecting makes it better as opposed to worse. On the surface, it's very lame - a pretty generic Chosen One story that you seem to be playing into. You can play the entire game believing that this is all that it is, especially if you don't pay attention to every detail presented. But the whole mythos surrounding it, the false incarnates, the tribunal's attitudes make it all the more interesting. It actually gains upon deeper inspection as you realize that there are a lot of clever details therein, as opposed to losing quality in your mind as you realize pieces not fitting and making little sense.

Even in terms of sidequest/guild structure, it's appreciable in how controlled they kept it, knowing what they are doing. Most guilds don't have a dramatic quest line within them that suddenly spikes up leading up to a grand finale - it's more of just everyday actions, regular job taking combined with some internal guild politics and occassional greater conflict. It makes the world feel rather consistent, as you naturally mold onto it - something Oblivion and Skyrim both lack because events always spike up to ridiculous intensity as soon as you get involved with a guild. True in both of these games, but Skyrim explodes faster in insanity and goes further, to really drive home the point of how ridiculous everything is and how it needs to create "interesting" spectacles for its audience with patience problems.

A friend of mine always talks about how much she cares for stories in particular in games, but she doesn't like Morrowind whatsoever because it doesn't give instant gratification in an "interesting" story, since the outwardly events and actions you take are pretty simple and direct. In its quality, it pretty much relies on the delayed gratification of people who really put extra care into thinking and looking as deep as possible into a story on its own.

Why don't you retards just go play a game with a simpler story that's easier to understand like Gothic?

Gothic is the stronger game. Even thought it's an action RPG. Even though it has gay voice acting. Even though the game is quite simplistic and the story is much, much simpler. We rate games by gameplay, not by now how many daydreams you had when you read a few in game stories about Vivec. Wankery over lore ( it has great lore ) and intellectual pretensions is not enough to make a good game.

Even gameplay-wise, Morrowind does have things to offer. Morrowind really is nowhere close to an action RPG (Oblivion and Skyrim try more for it, but they're not much of anything in the end), and your success is determined by your preparation for fights rather than your individual skill - although some clever movement can help you win out fights without having to spend excess resources like health / magicka potions. For people who enjoy character building specifically though and advancing the character's strengths quadratically as the game goes on, with incredible freedom - Morrowind does offer quite a lot in that regard. Sure, it's not that well balanced, but the fact that the game offers a lot to both optimize for yourself (very versatile enchanting with both constant effects and "cast on use" items), and find within the world (amazing quest reward items in some questlines, or even random artifacts you can find in the game world that aren't related to any quests) with their great powers really reward exploration and experimentation (on an initial/early playthrough) or your ability to optimize (on subsequent/many playthroughs) that I would not say Morrowind is "bad" or even "mediocre" gameplay-wise. It offers something really high quality for people who enjoy that particular kind of gameplay, it's just very much a non-direct kind of entertainment that it offers, but it both requires a particular mindset (people who like optimizing character builds) and a lot of patience (because the game's pace is slow if you're not REALLY well acquainted with it and/or use exploits - that is to say you can still progress quite fast even without exploits, just not quite at the same pace), but the rewards in how it rewards your progress feel great, and not many games offer that kind of gameplay structure and deliver it decently well.

Gothic, meanwhile, is a pretty directly enjoyable and somewhat better balanced action-RPG. You can just play it and enjoy it (mostly back in the day, but if you don't mind a minor bit of jank you can definitely pick it up and enjoy it nowadays - at least Gothic 2 NOTR, since Gothic 1 plays much worse for a variety of reasons). I would say it takes a particular kind of person to enjoy Morrowind a lot, while Gothic 1/2 can be enjoyed easier by most - so on a baseline analysis you could say Gothic 1/2 has "better" gameplay since it's more suited for anyone's preferences. But I wouldn't say that it, on its own, would make these games automatically superior, just like how more people enjoying any modern mainstream action RPG doesn't make it "better" than Gothic 1/2, just better-suited for direct enjoyment - and that is not to say necessarily "casualized" or "worthless", but focusing on different paradigms in design, or maybe just being technically better that those older games. But my point being, Morrowind does have its value in doing a specific thing really well - giving a niche to people who seek and desire to find that specific thing in a game.

 

[jackofshadows]

Morrowind has better exploration and environment design than just about every open world game since. Nobody plays these games for the dialogue, so that's not really a fair point of criticism. Combat is terrible, but that's still true of muh polished AAA games like Witcher 3.

Great envionment design. So what, you can wonder around and be mesmerized by it? It's a game we're talking about. Exploration is great too, fair enough, at least loot is handplaced.

But you cannot equate its terrible combat with also terrible in TW3 because the latter is still 100 times more fun.

The game does not prevent any player, if he so desires, from attempting to experience as much of the game's content as possible with a single, overleveled, overpowered character, and therefore it is possible for a single character to rise to the top of the Vvardenfell hierarchy in 8 of the 10 guilds/factions, but the fault for such activity lies in the player, not the game, which is designed to allow for three playthroughs experiencing almost entirely different content aside from the main quest.

I'm sorry, what?! I simply cannot beleive in what I'm reading right now. The player guilty... of the fact that Morrowind systems fashioned to suit some casual gamer who probably won't even suppose to finish the main quest? Or is there some hidden manual which should explain how to properly play this so precious game? Your point would be legit if we'd talking cheats, abuses, exploits... but no, apparently the player have to restrain himrself as well! What a lunacy.

The game's systems should've been tuned very differently to suit needs of a genre enthusiast. Say, you could've reach 100 skill level only by completing vast majority of activities and after exploring 90%+ of the map. Trainers should've been cut to 1 skill per level. Plus some additional tuning like alchemy should not progress further by using basic ingredients. Etc etc. And something like 30 lvl cap for the base game on top of that. Then guild and house restrictions would've make sense, yeah. Then maybe the game would've replay value and actual roleplay, not stupid LARP self-restrictions.

I dont know how much you played Morrowind but you are very wrong. Last time I played I found a new cave right under my nose, just next to Seyda Neen (starting town). 15 years after release. And I probably replayed the game 5-10 times over the years. Likewise, there are still guilds I haven't joined. Not finished, joined. I haven't even finished Tribunal or Bloodmoon.

You weren't able to explore the whole game 15 years ago therefore it has replay value? Simply smashing logic, keep it up, mate.

As for the story, guys, reading your praises to its the ususal chosen one and prophecy trope is just bizarre. Sure, they did throw some flavour to it but still it's just serviceable, the game must have a plot, right?

 

[luj1]

Morrowind had educated people on board, Rolston wrote SF, Kirkbride studied art and comparative religion in college (back when video game design degrees didn't exist). Best creative duo Bethesda ever had.

More importantly, Ken Rolston had extensive experience at designing actual RPG products:

and also Something Rotten in Kislev

 

[prengle]

Sigourn i haven't even read like 80% of this fucking thread but you've probably spent hundreds of hours trying to "fix" morrowind and mod it into something more palatable. (i am also guilty as charged when it comes to this shit.) this argument is older than the goddamn mycenaeans but clearly morrowind is worth something as a crpg if you're willing to invest that much fucking time into it. i could go off for hours tearing apart mw and nitpicking every little issue i have with it and it's still one of my all-time favorite games. the fact that bethesda saw what they were doing and gave people the option to fix the fucking game if they didn't like it already separates it from so many other crpgs. now should they HAVE to fix the fucking game to make it tolerable to begin with? well of fucking course not but i digress

i wish morrowind had more interesting sidequests and npcs fleshing out its setting, i wish the main quest was implemented in a manner similar to something like new vegas - and every single time i see someone lambasting morrowind for having little to no c&c and so on, i always think back to that old interview doug goodall did with uesp (the one kirkbride threw a bitchfit over) and i find myself agreeing with pretty much every single issue with the final product. then i remember that the few things morrowind does get right haven't really been improved upon in the last two decades and i wistfully dream about running away and getting pissfaced drunk and ending up in bed with some megachad bear trucker in wyoming

Morrowind had educated people on board, Rolston wrote SF, Kirkbride studied art and comparative religion in college (back when video game design degrees didn't exist). Best creative duo Bethesda ever had.

More importantly, Ken Rolston had extensive experience at designing actual RPG products

uncle ken may have had experience working on dnd modules but that experience doesn't necessarily fully translate over to developing crpgs, let alone something as fucking gargantuan as morrowind

dude seems like a fun boomer and i bear no ill will towards him but he clearly made some legendarily shitty design decisions while working on morrowind and oblivibun, like coming up with his supposed "no betrayal" rule while working on the former (which wasn't really enforced tbh, see: the tribunal's entire fucking backstory) and defending the legendarily botched level scaling system in the latter, not to mention that he'd always cave in todd's favor whenever the team debated on something because "todd was right and he was wrong" - if todd wanted map-based fast travel then he fucking got his fast travel because "it served the needs of the user" or whatever the fuck (although to be fair fast travel is one of oblivion's least offensive additions)

Your journey is an adventure. You don't just decide "I wanna be across the world". It should be an adventure, we should take advantage of it, y'know, getting somewhere. Finding a dungeon travelling up in the mountains, battling away through stuff. Roadside adventures are cool. Finding a guy on the side on the road, like "Have you seen my wagon?" That's cool, we're missing this opportunity by just having fast travel.

lol!

Oh, God. Partly, what I’ll do, is I’ll try to tell stories of myself about what kind of an idiot I was. I had, among the top ten things for Morrowind, that I thought our game was going to do I thought it was going to be an interactive novel, sort of like a hypertext novel. Because we had hyperlinks to all the elements in the journal. What happened was I had that idea and never tried to make it any better. And it was terrible, in fact, it was a negative feature of the game.

i wonder if he still answers emails...

 

[DalekFlay]

A friend of mine always talks about how much she cares for stories in particular in games, but she doesn't like Morrowind whatsoever because it doesn't give instant gratification in an "interesting" story, since the outwardly events and actions you take are pretty simple and direct. In its quality, it pretty much relies on the delayed gratification of people who really put extra care into thinking and looking as deep as possible into a story on its own.

Morrowind is a great example of what game narratives should be: player directed character and situation interaction in a well designed world. As much as games like Witcher 3 get their cocks sucked on here, they're very much of a directed, cinematic storytelling style that I think sucks for most genres, RPGs very much included. Bethesda's quality has been all over the map since Morrowind as we all know, but give them credit for (mostly) sticking to a player and world-driven narrative style.

 

[Sigourn]

clearly morrowind is worth something as a crpg if you're willing to invest that much fucking time into it.

Definitely. Then again, it's also true that Morrowind has a lot of very comprehensive and complex mods that allow for this kind of modding.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

Playing OpenMW right now. Can't say i think it's a bad RPG. It's certainly easily "broken" with how easy it is to exploit the systems, but honestly that's a positive in my eyes. Also WOW has the bethesda engine declined since. It's funny how much freedom is in MW and missing in Oblivion and especailly Skyrim.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I'm sorry, what?! I simply cannot beleive in what I'm reading right now. The player guilty... of the fact that Morrowind systems fashioned to suit some casual gamer who probably won't even suppose to finish the main quest? Or is there some hidden manual which should explain how to properly play this so precious game? Your point would be legit if we'd talking cheats, abuses, exploits... but no, apparently the player have to restrain himrself as well! What a lunacy.

The game's systems should've been tuned very differently to suit needs of a genre enthusiast. Say, you could've reach 100 skill level only by completing vast majority of activities and after exploring 90%+ of the map. Trainers should've been cut to 1 skill per level. Plus some additional tuning like alchemy should not progress further by using basic ingredients. Etc etc. And something like 30 lvl cap for the base game on top of that. Then guild and house restrictions would've make sense, yeah. Then maybe the game would've replay value and actual roleplay, not stupid LARP self-restrictions.

Your suggestion that attaining maximum skill levels be possible only by exploring nearly the entirety of Vvardenfell, i.e. experiencing nearly all game content in a single playthrough, would have diminished replay value and is the opposite of how Morrowind was designed. Instead, its game design promotes replayability by matching its fairly extensive skill-based character customization system with vast Open World content and 10 guilds/factions that offer many quests, so that someone can conduct three playthroughs with three distinct characters rising to leadership in varying guilds/factions while experiencing largely different content, aside from the main quest, in each playthrough. Artificial level caps and similar restrictions are impediments meant to aid casual gamers and should be rejected by RPG enthusiasts, especially in a game with robust character customization where the likely levels attained by the end of a playthrough could vary considerably across character builds. Someone who makes the choice to complete every guild/faction quest and other optional content in a single playthrough with an overleveled, overpowered character should not complain about the inevitable, obvious consequences of his decision.

 

[Konjad]

Why don't you retards just go play a game with a simpler story that's easier to understand like Gothic?

Gothic is the stronger game. Even thought it's an action RPG. Even though it has gay voice acting. Even though the game is quite simplistic and the story is much, much simpler. We rate games by gameplay, not by now how many daydreams you had when you read a few in game stories about Vivec. Wankery over lore ( it has great lore ) and intellectual pretensions is not enough to make a good game.

Not even mentioning that in Gothic things happen in front of your eyes and you are a part of the story, which is told via various evens the player either participates in (like fighting for the free mine) or happen right next to him (old camp declaring war on the new). The story - while perhaps not intricate - is presented visually and via immersive storytelling and it engages you to a great degree.

In Morrowind you just read about kewl things happening in books or via dialogue storydumps. Then you go around the entire huge fucking island and notice nothing is ever happening unless via another boring storydump in a quest or finding another book in a cave that says "here was cool thing happening, be amazed". Morrowind was a nice hiking sim with quests, but that's it.

EDIT:

if you don't mind a minor bit of jank you can definitely pick it up and enjoy it nowadays - at least Gothic 2 NOTR, since Gothic 1 plays much worse for a variety of reasons

What? Could you elaborate that? What is so janky about them, and more importantly: How Gothic "plays worse for a variety of reasons" when it has EXACTLY the same gameplay?

 

[MWaser]

if you don't mind a minor bit of jank you can definitely pick it up and enjoy it nowadays - at least Gothic 2 NOTR, since Gothic 1 plays much worse for a variety of reasons

What? Could you elaborate that? What is so janky about them, and more importantly: How Gothic "plays worse for a variety of reasons" when it has EXACTLY the same gameplay?

As for the jankiness of both games: the tank controls and the extremely harsh-controlling lock-on systems are the biggest offences, combined with the fact that your attacks completely ignore enemies who are not currently "target locked" / highlighted, because the hit detection only checks for the currently highlighted enemy. It makes fighting more than 1 enemy at any point more awkward than it needs to be due to limited mobility, uncooperative camera and inability to attack more than 1 target. And the movement can feel janky just going around the map peacefully due to turn rate being tied to animation to avoid awkward instant camera turns (not necessarily a flaw design-wise, but because you can't simultaneously strafe or go backwards naturally since these are tied to specific, separate movements) make everything feel somewhat awkward compared to any given more modern game.

As for Gothic 1: Have you played Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 somewhat recently at a close time? Gothic 1has way more arbitrary enemy invulnerability frames due to automatic evades, it has an erratic AI that attacks in a completely unpredictable pattern (cannot be learned to fight specific enemies better like in Gothic 2), and you're either playing with the base 19 FPS cap of the original engine or using the System Pack which introduces various 60-fps specific bugs (mostly fucks up jumping, but also some enemy actions and clipping).
Playing Gothic 2 after Gothic 1 feels like a major improvement due to several significant improvements to the base engine mechanics, in spite of them having pretty much "the same gameplay"

 

[jackofshadows]

I'm sorry, what?! I simply cannot beleive in what I'm reading right now. The player guilty... of the fact that Morrowind systems fashioned to suit some casual gamer who probably won't even suppose to finish the main quest? Or is there some hidden manual which should explain how to properly play this so precious game? Your point would be legit if we'd talking cheats, abuses, exploits... but no, apparently the player have to restrain himrself as well! What a lunacy.

The game's systems should've been tuned very differently to suit needs of a genre enthusiast. Say, you could've reach 100 skill level only by completing vast majority of activities and after exploring 90%+ of the map. Trainers should've been cut to 1 skill per level. Plus some additional tuning like alchemy should not progress further by using basic ingredients. Etc etc. And something like 30 lvl cap for the base game on top of that. Then guild and house restrictions would've make sense, yeah. Then maybe the game would've replay value and actual roleplay, not stupid LARP self-restrictions.

Your suggestion that attaining maximum skill levels be possible only by exploring nearly the entirety of Vvardenfell, i.e. experiencing nearly all game content in a single playthrough, would have diminished replay value and is the opposite of how Morrowind was designed. Instead, its game design promotes replayability by matching its fairly extensive skill-based character customization system with vast Open World content and 10 guilds/factions that offer many quests, so that someone can conduct three playthroughs with three distinct characters rising to leadership in varying guilds/factions while experiencing largely different content, aside from the main quest, in each playthrough. Artificial level caps and similar restrictions are impediments meant to aid casual gamers and should be rejected by RPG enthusiasts, especially in a game with robust character customization where the likely levels attained by the end of a playthrough could vary considerably across character builds. Someone who makes the choice to complete every guild/faction quest and other optional content in a single playthrough with an overleveled, overpowered character should not complain about the inevitable, obvious consequences of his decision.

Let's start with the replay value term: I thought 'replay' implies completeness, no? Say (if the game would've designed properly), you've completed the game as a fighter, focused on a certain skills, maybe took some complementary ones, whatever, and after you've experienced all you could (being unable get promoted much in a mage guild etc) you're starting over as a rogue/mage/some hybrid archetype in your mind and when you begin to experience things you couldn't before, you're starting to gain replay value. What you're suggesting is to play untill your skills have evolved to a certain point and then just drop it? Sounds ridiculous to me.

Not sure where your perspective on level cups is coming from, they're working just fine in a some good RPGs: BG, Arcanum, Underrail (mostly to allow two different XP systems working together). And Morrowind, being a open-world game with learn by doing progress system is, like, begging for level cup or some other crutсhes because even the ability to raise to the same max (100) level irrelevant, non-chosen skills alone seems like an oversight. But as I said, the game was designed for a lowest casuals with what effective base game world cup, 26 or something (the most dangerous creatures appears)? While even w/o meta-knowledge and mitigating your starting skills is possible to reach 70+ lvl. So the devs just didn't bothered, that's all.

 

[Konjad]

if you don't mind a minor bit of jank you can definitely pick it up and enjoy it nowadays - at least Gothic 2 NOTR, since Gothic 1 plays much worse for a variety of reasons

What? Could you elaborate that? What is so janky about them, and more importantly: How Gothic "plays worse for a variety of reasons" when it has EXACTLY the same gameplay?

As for the jankiness of both games: the tank controls and the extremely harsh-controlling lock-on systems are the biggest offences, combined with the fact that your attacks completely ignore enemies who are not currently "target locked" / highlighted, because the hit detection only checks for the currently highlighted enemy. It makes fighting more than 1 enemy at any point more awkward than it needs to be due to limited mobility, uncooperative camera and inability to attack more than 1 target. And the movement can feel janky just going around the map peacefully due to turn rate being tied to animation to avoid awkward instant camera turns (not necessarily a flaw design-wise, but because you can't simultaneously strafe or go backwards naturally since these are tied to specific, separate movements) make everything feel somewhat awkward compared to any given more modern game.

Alright, lock-on system can indeed be annoying sometimes, I give you that.

As for Gothic 1: Have you played Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 somewhat recently at a close time?

Yes.

Gothic 1has way more arbitrary enemy invulnerability frames due to automatic evades, it has an erratic AI that attacks in a completely unpredictable pattern (cannot be learned to fight specific enemies better like in Gothic 2),

Which is better, because in a fight you want to be anything but predictable.

and you're either playing with the base 19 FPS cap of the original engine or using the System Pack which introduces various 60-fps specific bugs (mostly fucks up jumping, but also some enemy actions and clipping).

I don't remember 19 FPS, but then I played it over 10 years ago without system pack, so I guess that's true. Still, it's just an old game, bashing it for aiming at lower FPS isn't really fair imo. Are you complaining that RoA isn't 3D? I don't think so. It's just limitations at the time, not faulty design. I played with SP last weeks and I must say I've never noticed issues with jumping nor clipping or enemies. All worked fine. Maybe old SP had these issues but are fixed now?

Playing Gothic 2 after Gothic 1 feels like a major improvement due to several significant improvements to the base engine mechanics, in spite of them having pretty much "the same gameplay"

Except more challenging leveling system (with NotR) I didn't really notice any changes. They made controls worse, but fortunately allow using old ones via a setting in options.

 

[MWaser]

Gothic 1has way more arbitrary enemy invulnerability frames due to automatic evades, it has an erratic AI that attacks in a completely unpredictable pattern (cannot be learned to fight specific enemies better like in Gothic 2),

Which is better, because in a fight you want to be anything but predictable.

that's an argument for versimilitude / realism, not gameplay design. The unpredictability of opponents in Gothic 1 didn't add to the gameplay because there was no reliable way to "skillfully" win against them, as you had no way of stopping their spontaneous infinite comboes if they decided to pull those off, or just ignore all your attacks consistently like lizards/snappers often would. It made most fights in Gothic 1 way more reliant on your stats and equipment than experience with the game's combat mechanics. I can say that's fair preference for people who give preference to traditional cRPGs, but not something I would see as a benefit in an action RPG.

To put it this way: you could more reasonably manipulate your positioning and timing for your advantage in Gothic 2 than you can in Gothic 1. If you think of it as a negative because fights shouldn't be predictable, that's on your personal priorities. I like being given more control, generally speaking.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Let's start with the replay value term: I thought 'replay' implies completeness, no? Say (if the game would've designed properly), you've completed the game as a fighter, focused on a certain skills, maybe took some complementary ones, whatever, and after you've experienced all you could (being unable get promoted much in a mage guild etc) you're starting over as a rogue/mage/some hybrid archetype in your mind and when you begin to experience things you couldn't before, you're starting to gain replay value. What you're suggesting is to play untill your skills have evolved to a certain point and then just drop it? Sounds ridiculous to me.

In my first playthrough of Morrowind, I designed a straightforward fighter-type character, joined the Fighters Guild, Imperial Legion, and House Redoran, and eventually rose to leadership in all three while completing the main quest and various miscellaneous quests (plus some quest-less exploration). Having completed this playthrough, I started a second as a mage-type character joining the Mages Guild, Imperial Cult, and House Telvanni, followed by a third playthrough as a thief-type character joining the Thieves Guild, Morag Tong, and House Hlaalu. Certainly, it would never have crossed my mind to continue my first playthrough by joining the other seven guilds/factions, having my fighter-type character improve the magic- and stealth-related skills, and then complaining that the game was no longer challenging.
I had always wondered why a certain portion of Codexers were so enamored of Fallout-style ending slides, but now I realize it's because they need the slides in order to know when to start a new game.

 

[Kainan]

if you don't mind a minor bit of jank you can definitely pick it up and enjoy it nowadays - at least Gothic 2 NOTR, since Gothic 1 plays much worse for a variety of reasons

What? Could you elaborate that? What is so janky about them, and more importantly: How Gothic "plays worse for a variety of reasons" when it has EXACTLY the same gameplay?

As for the jankiness of both games: the tank controls and the extremely harsh-controlling lock-on systems are the biggest offences, combined with the fact that your attacks completely ignore enemies who are not currently "target locked" / highlighted, because the hit detection only checks for the currently highlighted enemy. It makes fighting more than 1 enemy at any point more awkward than it needs to be due to limited mobility, uncooperative camera and inability to attack more than 1 target. And the movement can feel janky just going around the map peacefully due to turn rate being tied to animation to avoid awkward instant camera turns (not necessarily a flaw design-wise, but because you can't simultaneously strafe or go backwards naturally since these are tied to specific, separate movements) make everything feel somewhat awkward compared to any given more modern game.

As for Gothic 1: Have you played Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 somewhat recently at a close time? Gothic 1has way more arbitrary enemy invulnerability frames due to automatic evades, it has an erratic AI that attacks in a completely unpredictable pattern (cannot be learned to fight specific enemies better like in Gothic 2), and you're either playing with the base 19 FPS cap of the original engine or using the System Pack which introduces various 60-fps specific bugs (mostly fucks up jumping, but also some enemy actions and clipping).
Playing Gothic 2 after Gothic 1 feels like a major improvement due to several significant improvements to the base engine mechanics, in spite of them having pretty much "the same gameplay"

I remember hitting two guys at once at least in G2. First time i hear about 19 fps cap? I played it last year without that System pack or any mods and it played jus fine.

 

[Mud']

Why don't you retards just go play a game with a simpler story that's easier to understand like Gothic?

Well at least Gothic feels more alive/reactive and way more fun to replay than Morrowind for sure.

 

[Duralux for Durabux]

To quote one of its developer.
https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview

I was also disappointed with the main quest in Morrowind. Frankly, the main quest never made sense to me, and I felt it contradicted too much existing lore. I couldn't get emotionally involved in the main quest or discern the motivations of the key players.

I liked the dialogue system on paper, but in practice I think it makes it too hard for players to develop their characters (in a roleplaying sense). I don't like "putting words in the player's mouth," which is what all but the simplest dialogue choices require. But when playing more traditional RPGs, I noticed that I connected with my character more when I had to choose different dialogue responses. Am I playing a goody two shoes? A greedy bastard? Do I always choose the sarcastic response, even if it gets me in trouble? Light side or dark side? Lawful good or chaotic evil? Paladin, Fire Mage, or Mercenary? I felt Morrowind lacked even binary character development choices. I could be very good in Morrowind, and I could be very bad in Morrowind, but I rarely had the chance to tell anyone about it. The game didn't react to me being good or bad, except when I was caught committing a crime.

Which mean, there is no difference between playing a Mage, a warrior , a thief in Morrowind or being bad or good.

 

[Kainan]

True, there is no difference in bad or good player, as in reactions from npcs. But it is different while playing Thief, warrior, mage.
And there is reaction in some quests, they reward you differently acording to wheter you kill or not.
Its true i didnt reallt know what kind of "person" my char was while playing. But you have to admit thats kind of gay anyway.

 

[jackofshadows]

Let's start with the replay value term: I thought 'replay' implies completeness, no? Say (if the game would've designed properly), you've completed the game as a fighter, focused on a certain skills, maybe took some complementary ones, whatever, and after you've experienced all you could (being unable get promoted much in a mage guild etc) you're starting over as a rogue/mage/some hybrid archetype in your mind and when you begin to experience things you couldn't before, you're starting to gain replay value. What you're suggesting is to play untill your skills have evolved to a certain point and then just drop it? Sounds ridiculous to me.

In my first playthrough of Morrowind, I designed a straightforward fighter-type character, joined the Fighters Guild, Imperial Legion, and House Redoran, and eventually rose to leadership in all three while completing the main quest and various miscellaneous quests (plus some quest-less exploration). Having completed this playthrough, I started a second as a mage-type character joining the Mages Guild, Imperial Cult, and House Telvanni, followed by a third playthrough as a thief-type character joining the Thieves Guild, Morag Tong, and House Hlaalu. Certainly, it would never have crossed my mind to continue my first playthrough by joining the other seven guilds/factions, having my fighter-type character improve the magic- and stealth-related skills, and then complaining that the game was no longer challenging.
I had always wondered why a certain portion of Codexers were so enamored of Fallout-style ending slides, but now I realize it's because they need the slides in order to know when to start a new game.

Yeah, I got that you were judging mostly by your own experience with the game. That's called LARPing, not role-playing. The game provides some internal restrictions but guild attribute requirements are too low so they can be neglected entirely. The only exception is a choice of the Great House and I remember starting over to join them all myself back in the day but that's basically it. In the pursuit of providing freedom to the player and don't accidentally confuse some random casual they overdid systems relaxing (or didn't bothered to begin with). So, as OP stated - subj is just a bad RPG.

 

[Funposter]

Not autistically completing every shred of content on a single character? That's LARPing, pal.