Does Morrowind hold up?

[Continuity]

Back when Morrowind was fairly new, I loved it, I played the everloving shit out of it.

Then, about a month ago, I picked up the GOTY edition at a store and thought 'Man this is going to be awesome!' I was so wrong. The game hasn't held up at all. The combat is terrible(Which is what the game makes you do for the majority of it, at least if you do quests and the like.) There is a rather large amount of freedom, but I couldn't last longer than a half hour this last time I tried... My nostalgia glasses shattered.. =(

I admit its lost a little something with age and in light of oblivion and skyrim many will find it hard to adjust going back but to be fair Morrowind was never a game that "held up" after just 1/2 hour playing, it took several hours at least to get invested and to start fleshing out your character and picking up some interesting quests.

I say go back to it and give it at least 10 hours before you make your mind up. If you're up for it that is, there's not real reason to do so with skyrim so fresh out.

After all, its not the game that has changed with age, its just your perspective of it. THe game you loved is still there exactly the same as it was and that's not nostalgia, nostalgia is remembering things as better than they were, implying that morrowind was bad... it wasn't, its just that your expectations have changed.

P.s. I replayed it a couple of years ago and had a ball.

 

[Starke]

Grab a cheap copy of Daggerfall.....

No such thing. Bethesda released it here [http://www.elderscrolls.com/daggerfall/] for free, and the only other version, the CD with voice work or something is hideously expensive.

 

[Starke]

The Torment thing comes up because, I don't really accept your statement that The Witcher had bad combat, or for that matter bad gameplay.

The Witcher absolutely doesn't have bad gameplay, however the combat, taken purely as an element by itself, its pretty unimaginative and to be frank smacks of QTE. Of course its not that simple, you do have potions, combat styles, your spells... but basically the "action" part of the combat boils down to clicking the mouse button when the sword icon flames.
Its perfectly adequate for an RPG but believe me you don't have to go far to find hordes of gamers complaining about it, I've had and seen countless debates about the Witcher even just in these forums.

Like I said, I don't really accept the statement that it had bad gameplay. However, in a relative state where the genre's median for combat is actually improved by the addition of QTEs should be a pretty substantial warning as a whole.

Honestly, no offense, but this statement sounds like self delusion, and here's why: Gaming, as a whole is infamous for bad storytelling. With a handful of exceptions, the bulk of games, including RPGs have terrible stories.

When you look at the story from, really, any Bioware game, or any Bethesda game, the story itself will be cliche crap. The Witcher isn't really an exception to this, because the entire point of the novels was poking fantasy cliches, and mocking them viciously, and that carries over. Unfortunately you can tell from the way Bioware and Bethesda present their settings they're intended to be played straight.

The thing is, Bethesda and Bioware are really the core of good RPGs these days. On one hand we have Bioware talking up their writing as the second coming, and boatloads of fans agreeing, when any professional writer will look at that and then slap you silly for making them suffer through it, and on the other we have Bethesda and Fallout 3's... everything.

The Elder Scrolls series as a whole fall into the same trap. Morrowind is as good as the setting gets. I really like it. It does some interesting things with fantasy cliches. But, god knows it is not good storytelling. Good world building, sure, but not good storytelling.

I'n not saying that the stories are great or that the storytelling is particularly good, I read a lot, mostly classics, so I know a good well written story when I see one. RPG isn't about that, story is just another element, a part from which a greater whole is assembled.
RPG in a nutshell is about creating a fantasy world that's engaging enough for you to escape to briefly and live vicariously though your character or characters. Its more about experiencing the game world as an escapist reality than having an impressive narrative.. that Is what we have literature and film for.

Which is, no offense, not what you were saying earlier. Generally speaking, I have no objection to someone revising their argument, but at the same time you should probably point out when you intend to do so.

...or work on your written communication skills in general. Again, no offense intended, but your posts have an... unfocused, quality to them, that makes parsing a coherent argument kind of tricky.

So saying that RPG players are somehow the connoisseurs of video game narratives is a bit like claiming to be a connoisseur of fast food. Yeah, sure, you can do that, but expect to be looked down upon for that.

I didn't claim anything about anyone being connoisseurs, that's something you've read into my bad analogy and certainly wasn't my intended message.

I'm not sure the analogy is actually all that bad. Weird, yes, but it holds up on multiple levels, though, granted, probably not in the way you intended.

I'm talking about this, and I'm not even thinking about the RPGs out there that cross into genuinely awful writing. The original Neverwinter Nights comes to mind immediately, as does every incarnation of Dungeon Siege I ever touched, Space Siege while we're on the subject. Two Worlds' storytelling was actually slightly above par (for games), but the dialog was so hilariously bad... (and oddly consistent) well, at least there were redeeming qualities there.

Well you're certainly not alone in finding the original neverwinter yawn worthy, for me though that was mostly bad level design and just a poorly constructed adventure all round.

It's worth remembering though, the Witcher was running on a heavily modified version of the Aurora Engine.

Again with the wine analogy. The funny thing about that is, wine is a terribly finicky beverage. While the shape of the glass' stem is probably pretty much irrelevant, to actual connoisseur, the difference between glass and glazed ceramics are probably pretty important to the flavor.

By the same measure if such a connoisseur actually did exist for RPGs, you'd better believe that combat, and gameplay in general, would be up on the block as relevant criteria. Remember that G actually does stand for "game".

Well I hope you can see past the analogy to the actual point I was making between the lines, after all, I'm not actually making any point about wine here... In fact forget the analogy, its clearly more trouble that its worth.

Yes RPGs are "games" but they are a certain type of game, one in which combat is almost universally present but at the same time almost universally not key to the game's subjective quality as an RPG. After all, if all RPGs had to have good combat to be considered good games there would be very very few RPGs that could be considered "good", where as to me and many other people RPGs form the backbone of any top 20 games of all time list.

I can see past the analogy, that isn't going to spare you from me re-appropriating it, however.

Anyway, if you're looking at an RPG as a gestalt of game elements, then combat is always going to be a valid element to look at. That is to say, if you're reviewing a game objectively, everything, yes everything, is a valid point to potentially critique. This includes things that you, as a fan of something, might prefer to gloss over. Things like the control scheme or even the box art can be a valid criticism under the right circumstances. A game element that is always there and is fundamental to the overall game experience, like combat, is always going to be a valid subject to criticism, no matter how good or how poor it is. In fact, because of the industry's culture, combat is always a valid element to critique, even in games where combat is not the intended focus, like most stealth games.

No, you're right, that was poorly phrased. It should have been: from a practical standpoint, the difference between a bad game and an unplayable game is irrelevant.

Provided the game is universally considered unplayable, then yeah sure. However in the case of our discussion what qualifies as "unplayable" is clearly subjective. A game can't be objectively "bad" because its subjectively "unplayable".

Meaning at a subjective level, the difference between objectively bad, and subjectively unplayable is irrelevant.

It is true as well. Deus Ex, for instance, is a fantastic experience IF you can get past the dated graphics, and poor combat. In the case of Deus Ex you can say the poor combat was a deliberate design decision, to encourage you to find alternate methods of problem solving, but for someone who can't get past the graphics and the controls, that's really irrelevant, it is "just semantics", because either way the experience is out of their reach.

I think you mean its a moot point rather than semantics, and yeah for them it is a moot point... but screw them, like I say, every game doesn't have to cater to every gamer. Sometimes its ok to be a niche product.

And that's all well and good, but the subject of this entire thread can be boiled down to someone asking "am I in this niche?" for Morrowind.

 

[Continuity]

Like I said, I don't really accept the statement that it had bad gameplay.

You don't have to accept it because its not a statement i've made.

Which is, no offense, not what you were saying earlier. Generally speaking, I have no objection to someone revising their argument, but at the same time you should probably point out when you intend to do so.

...or work on your written communication skills in general. Again, no offense intended, but your posts have an... unfocused, quality to them, that makes parsing a coherent argument kind of tricky.

Have you actually been reading my posts? show me a quote where I say in any shape or form that RPG is about story or that the story is very important.
In fact I've just read back though my posts and to me at least they seem entirely consistent as I'm basically saying the same thing over and over in different ways trying to get you to see my point.
No offence, but you need to try reading what I've written rather then just arguing against the vague idea you have in your head about what I'm getting at.

It's worth remembering though, the Witcher was running on a heavily modified version of the Aurora Engine.

I had no problem with the engine in neverwinter nights, it was just the game they made with it that was poor.

I can see past the analogy, that isn't going to spare you from me re-appropriating it, however.

Anyway, if you're looking at an RPG as a gestalt of game elements, then combat is always going to be a valid element to look at. That is to say, if you're reviewing a game objectively, everything, yes everything, is a valid point to potentially critique. This includes things that you, as a fan of something, might prefer to gloss over. Things like the control scheme or even the box art can be a valid criticism under the right circumstances. A game element that is always there and is fundamental to the overall game experience, like combat, is always going to be a valid subject to criticism, no matter how good or how poor it is. In fact, because of the industry's culture, combat is always a valid element to critique, even in games where combat is not the intended focus, like most stealth games.

Absolutely, but, and this but is the point i've been trying to make this whole time, various gameplay elements have a different weight of importance in different genre. It would be unfair to write off GTA for having poor shooting as the shooting in that game has less importance than it does say in call of duty. My problem is that many many gamers write off RPGs because they expect the combat to be front and centre the most important element of the game, which in RPG it simply isn't.. and so its unfair to write off an RPG purely because of the combat as that is relatively speaking a fairly minor part of the RPG whole (many great RPGs have no action based combat at all! turn based FTW!).

Criticise combat as an element of the game by all means, but just don't give it undue weight in judging the game as a whole. To use your example, you might well criticise the box art of a game, and why not? but it would be unreasonable to say that the game was bad because the box art sucked wouldn't it?

Meaning at a subjective level, the difference between objectively bad, and subjectively unplayable is irrelevant.

If you say so, I don't even know where you're going with this at this point.

And that's all well and good, but the subject of this entire thread can be boiled down to someone asking "am I in this niche?" for Morrowind.

True, and I answered the OP in my first post, the discussion I've been having with you however has been off topic, or at least at a tangent.

 

[RetardedKitty]

this conversation reminds me, where is my bear with tentacles in Skyrim? Bethseda ? where is my f*** bear with tentacles...

 

[Starke]

this conversation reminds me, where is my bear with tentacles in Skyrim? Bethseda ? where is my f*** bear with tentacles...

Destructoid has it.

Like I said, I don't really accept the statement that it had bad gameplay.

You don't have to accept it because its not a statement i've made.

No, you said combat was poor, however as combat is a major element of gameplay, particularly in The Witcher, it's a conflation I can live with.

I realize you're being very careful to keep those separate, but, in point of fact, with a game like the Witcher there isn't much to gameplay beyond combat.

Which is, no offense, not what you were saying earlier. Generally speaking, I have no objection to someone revising their argument, but at the same time you should probably point out when you intend to do so.

...or work on your written communication skills in general. Again, no offense intended, but your posts have an... unfocused, quality to them, that makes parsing a coherent argument kind of tricky.

Have you actually been reading my posts? show me a quote where I say in any shape or form that RPG is about story or that the story is very important.
In fact I've just read back though my posts and to me at least they seem entirely consistent as I'm basically saying the same thing over and over in different ways trying to get you to see my point.
No offence, but you need to try reading what I've written rather then just arguing against the vague idea you have in your head about what I'm getting at.

You may have set this up with the original snip about story in your comment about stories in FPSs being unimportant:

Criticising combat in an RPG is like criticising the story in an FPS, these things complement the game but they are not the focus (there are exceptions of course but then genres aren't really all that clear cut in many cases).

While that may not have been you're intent, we're back at your wine tasting analogy. It read a context into the rest of your posts, intended or otherwise. Additionally, if we're using your "gameplay" as an amalgam of different game elements, but, you've yet to define any other non-combat game elements as gameplay.

So, when you say The Witcher is a good RPG but lacks good combat, without defining anything else, anywhere else, except for the comment about story, you're already setting up an argument. You say it's a good RPG, but you don't explain why that is. With the industry leaning on story the way it is, and given that The Witcher is a linear game, with no significant exploration elements, no character customization options (in the conventional sense (you will always be playing Geralt)), and very little to recommend it outside of its story, you've created an argument, intentionally or otherwise that if not combat, story.

It's worth remembering though, the Witcher was running on a heavily modified version of the Aurora Engine.

I had no problem with the engine in neverwinter nights, it was just the game they made with it that was poor.

Just pointing out the NWN reference wasn't completely random. Also pointing out that the combat was a marked improvement off the game's technical predecessor.

I can see past the analogy, that isn't going to spare you from me re-appropriating it, however.

Anyway, if you're looking at an RPG as a gestalt of game elements, then combat is always going to be a valid element to look at. That is to say, if you're reviewing a game objectively, everything, yes everything, is a valid point to potentially critique. This includes things that you, as a fan of something, might prefer to gloss over. Things like the control scheme or even the box art can be a valid criticism under the right circumstances. A game element that is always there and is fundamental to the overall game experience, like combat, is always going to be a valid subject to criticism, no matter how good or how poor it is. In fact, because of the industry's culture, combat is always a valid element to critique, even in games where combat is not the intended focus, like most stealth games.

Absolutely, but, and this but is the point i've been trying to make this whole time, various gameplay elements have a different weight of importance in different genre. It would be unfair to write off GTA for having poor shooting as the shooting in that game has less importance than it does say in call of duty. My problem is that many many gamers write off RPGs because they expect the combat to be front and centre the most important element of the game, which in RPG it simply isn't.. and so its unfair to write off an RPG purely because of the combat as that is relatively speaking a fairly minor part of the RPG whole (many great RPGs have no action based combat at all! turn based FTW!).

Criticise combat as an element of the game by all means, but just don't give it undue weight in judging the game as a whole. To use your example, you might well criticise the box art of a game, and why not? but it would be unreasonable to say that the game was bad because the box art sucked wouldn't it?

The box art bit becomes relevant when it kills a game, however, which is exactly what happened to Torment. The issue here is you're saying judge a game on the strengths of it's genre. The problem is, when it comes to RPGs, Diablo. Diablo, it's sequel, and the loads of clones that chased after it introduced an action focus to RPGs. We see this everywhere now. From the utterly inappropriate real time combat in Fallout Tactics and Arcanum to Dark Messiah's brawler heavy focus, action combat in RPGs is now the norm.

Hell, Dragon Age actually pointed this out rather blatantly. Journeys was a rather brilliant little turn based flash game that used the game's combat mechanics, while the final product was an aRPG saturated mess. The Witcher's combat mechanic was driven at least partially on the fundamental assumption that NWN's combat wasn't actiony enough. The entire shift from Morrowind to Oblivion was an acknowledgement of this change. Hell, look at the combat mechanics in Deus Ex and in Human Revolution if you want to see how precisely this has changed over the last decade, in a snapshot.

I'm not sure if this is an indictment of the industry, or the players, regardless, today, combat is a vital element to grade for any RPG.

And the fact of the matter is, Morrowind's combat is bad. There are some elements to it that could make for engaging gameplay, all undermined by a horrible dice roll mechanic. Saying the game shouldn't be judged by that is more than a little misleading, particularly given that it is indicative of Morrowind's gameplay as a whole.

Weighting a game differently by genre is a nice idea, but in the case of RPGs, that means ultimately you'd be judging Torchlight and Winter Voices by the same metric. The alternative is to judge games on their individual merits, weighing the system for that game, which is what actually is happening here. Combat is a vital, core element for Morrowind, and it's one where the game fails utterly. You can say it's less important as it's an RPG, but ultimately the game itself mocks that argument as every single class in the game has a combat focus, in varying venues. Of the game's 30 skills, I think 24 or 25 are primarily combat focused (with some room to argue that some of the magic schools aren't). The game itself is telling you, "look, combat is vitally important," and as such, it needs to be considered when evaluating the game.

Meaning at a subjective level, the difference between objectively bad, and subjectively unplayable is irrelevant.

If you say so, I don't even know where you're going with this at this point.

It doesn't matter. I went there, said my bit, and now it's done.

And that's all well and good, but the subject of this entire thread can be boiled down to someone asking "am I in this niche?" for Morrowind.

True, and I answered the OP in my first post, the discussion I've been having with you however has been off topic, or at least at a tangent.

Sort of, this started off with me snarking about how 75% of the game was about getting lost due to bad quest directions, meeting Umbra and dying horribly.

 

[Farther than stars]

I have to give you my very honest opinion of neither. And that's because I didn't like Morrowind, so I think it was just a feat of its time that doesn't hold up today.

 

[Gutkrusha]

Back when Morrowind was fairly new, I loved it, I played the everloving shit out of it.

Then, about a month ago, I picked up the GOTY edition at a store and thought 'Man this is going to be awesome!' I was so wrong. The game hasn't held up at all. The combat is terrible(Which is what the game makes you do for the majority of it, at least if you do quests and the like.) There is a rather large amount of freedom, but I couldn't last longer than a half hour this last time I tried... My nostalgia glasses shattered.. =(

I admit its lost a little something with age and in light of oblivion and skyrim many will find it hard to adjust going back but to be fair Morrowind was never a game that "held up" after just 1/2 hour playing, it took several hours at least to get invested and to start fleshing out your character and picking up some interesting quests...

...nostalgia is remembering things as better than they were, implying that morrowind was bad... it wasn't, its just that your expectations have changed.

P.s. I replayed it a couple of years ago and had a ball.

But for me, morrowind was a game that hooked me after a half hour. So was Oblivion, so was Skyrim. I loved it almost immediately upon putting it in my first time playing it.


Imagining things better than they were doesn't imply that the game was bad. I don't remember the combat being so sluggish and annoying. Back then it was fun and exciting to me, and I loved it. The atmosphere and setting still holds up, though.

 

[Bobbity]

Not on console, at least. The setting is still awesome, true, but the graphics haven't aged well, and the gameplay/combat was always utterly shit.

This is coming from a fan.

Probably a tonne better on PC with all the mods though.

 

[Dexiro]

A lot of little things in Morrowind haven't aged well at all; mainly the crappy UI and weird combat, but those things can be modded out.

The rest of the game is brilliant though, or atleast what I'd played of it.

 

[Continuity]

But for me, morrowind was a game that hooked me after a half hour. So was Oblivion, so was Skyrim. I loved it almost immediately upon putting it in my first time playing it.


Imagining things better than they were doesn't imply that the game was bad. I don't remember the combat being so sluggish and annoying. Back then it was fun and exciting to me, and I loved it. The atmosphere and setting still holds up, though.

Ah fair enough, for me it was always a bit of a grind to start with. The first time I played it it didn't get very far, maybe 10 hours play, the second time I didn't do much better. It was only a few years later that I really had a good go at it, at that wasn't for lack of trying it was just a fairly impenetrable game.