Am I the only one that thinks it's fine if games had slightly less detailed cities if they were bigger instead?
Now, don't get me wrong, I know Daggerfall is as wide as ocean and as shallow as a puddle, but the fact that the capital city of Skyrim has like 15 houses really ruins my immersion.
Why can't modern games into sprawling settlements?
>Why can't modern games into sprawling settlements?
Because consoles. Try playing Pillars 2 and them you'll see what can be accomplished when performance isn't limited.
i'd much rather have a small town where every building and npc has something to do or something going on, than a giant empty city that has fucking nothing to do.
Yes, you are.
What kinda balance are you looking for? Like, do just want bigger cities with copy and pasting at the detriment of all looking the same?
the biggest thing for me in skyrim was the fact that bandit caves outnumber major cities like 10 to 1
Middle ground between the city of Daggerfall and the city of Solitude.
Half of the NPCs in Skyrim were already as generic as they could be. Just drop voice acting and you can increase the scale of the city by at least 4 times.
This.
Yeah, why not? That's literally real life.
Some games manage to have much better cities. Skyrim is just low-level mediocrity all around, the fact that this 'trait' of the game manifests in its city design isn't anything special.
Consoles.
>Why can't modern games into sprawling settlements?
But they can user, Witcher 3 and other Yea Forumsidya managed to
Without VA you get Morrowind tier NPCs.
Not a a fan of the generic wiki speak.
Leave the info dumps to books not NPCs.
Something about the width of the Ocean yada yada yada.
I would rather they put in some effort on the populace.
Bethesda can certainly improve mirroring Witcher 3 isn't the answer.
>Consoles
I'm not so sure.
It's why Yakuza and Majora's Mask are the best games.
Skyrim is like 10 years old at this point, and the technology used to make it is even older. Also, Bethesda are shit. Not really a good metric.
>Skyrim is like 10 years old at this point
Jesus I remember waiting for it to come out.
Don't you get the realization that you're in a tiny box once you do all the things though? Having most things and people be boring and irrelevant is actually true to life.
Reality sucks though. Video games should never be realistic for the sake of realism.
Walking into Novigrad in TW3 was an experience, you can't fake that kind of immersion. Hope in the future RPGs go the route of large cities and not the TES style ones we keep getting.
True, but when only Important Things exist you just end up going in everybody's house and breaking every pot and killing every animal to see what it drops because if it's there it must be for something.
Not every house needs to be interactable. I think having important houses/npcs spread out or in a hub area, while having lots of uninteractable houses and generic NPCs is the best option. That way you still have a sense of scale while still being realistically attainable.
>Quantity over quality
No, you're not the only one that thinks that, but you've got no taste.
> What is any GTA game
Witcher 3 actually felt right. Not too much, not too little.
>the only options are walking wikis or voiced single line cutouts
How about actual NPCs like you'd expect to find in a roleplaying game?