• Hagdos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s both a huge claim and an unimportant one, and that’s why it’s a problem.

    Claiming you have “taller than Mt. Everest” mountains in your game is easily verifiable, and a ton of work. Because you need a map that fits a mountain that size, and need to do all the artwork, make it an interesting place to be. It’s not impossible, just a lot of work.

    At the same time, it’s not very important. When I’m looking for a next game, I don’t care how high the mountains are. I want an interesting place. Skyrims High Hrotgar for example is an interesting place with an interesting story. It felt very high and a long walk (7000 steps), but it probably pales in comparison to Mt. Everest.

    So promise us a great story, interesting characters, or challenging gameplay. A good game, not a technical masterpiece that will be empty.

    • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Someone on that other site did the math and conclusively calculated that High Hrothgar is about 2000ft above sea level.

    • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, that’s a fair point. It would be more exciting if it wasn’t procedurally generated, and that those mountaintops actually have something important to the gameplay or story explicitely placed there.

      Then it would at least make a bit more sense to talk about how climbable those huge mountains are.