| The_Yoda said: Bolded - that is an assumption we can't make about the new game since we haven't played it. You claim there is not extra content without even knowing what content there is. You could be correct or you could be flat wrong. Again we won't know until we play it. As for the wave you mentioned we know there wasn't one but let's say there is. The wave would be our point B, we weren't planning on stopping at point B, we were on our way to point C until we realized that there was something obscured at point B. You said "Maybe you want to and maybe you do. It doesn't change the fact that you did the exact same sailing for the exact same distance to get there." you're correct you did the exact same sailing to get to point B, only you were going to point C, so it changes the trip from points A to C when you stop to investigate point B. To say it doesn't change the trip is only valid if you ignore point B and go straight on to C. "Riding over a hill on a horse or through a bridge or a bunch of trees instead of your usual grassy plain does absolutely none of that." again you are assuming there is nothing on the other side of the hill, from the game play video we know that is an erroneous assumption as we watched them round a rock and come upon enemies. We watched them round a rock and come across a group of horses. We have played WW and we know there were no large waves obscuring our view to the horizon. With three plains it very much makes a difference the route you take, with two plains you can see to the horizon and nothing is hidden. Unlike with two plains if your north south course is 4 meters to the west or 4 meters to the east that could make a difference as to wether or not you see the enterace to a dungeon. KORL and Epona can both, it seem, be left to sail/run in the direction you pointed them in, in WW there was little to run into, in ZU there seem to be lots of things to run into. We will have to wait and see if the AI for Epona does the job well or not. |
The bolded wasn't directed at the game as a whole. It was directed at your hill theory. It doesn't matter if there is something at both points B and C. It doesn't matter if you ignored point B. That doesn't mean there is more content in one than there is in the other. It means that you chose not to investigate one point and not the other. I'm not assuming anything. Your example does not prove your point. Hills don't add any content. Trees don't add any content. "Rounding a rock" that obscures horses doesn't add content to the world. It literally just means that you have to round a rock. That rock didn't make the world less empty, it just made the world 1% more rock looking. Hills just make the world more hill looking. Trees make it more tree looking.
If there were suddenly a thousand trees and a thousand rocks and a thousand little water hills in the oceans of Wind Waker, it would have successfully added a whopping 0% of tangable content to the game. It's nothing but aesthetic dressing. That's great for atmosphere, but that's exactly what people mean when they say that Skyrims world is empty. Plenty of hills, trees, cliffs, "rocks," lakes, and whatever other insignificant aesthetic things you can think of to make the game look nice, but very little tangable and worthwhile content to do in it. Riding a horse around a rock doesn't constitute something to do.
