SajuukKhar said:
Which still makes the longbow inferior to the daedric bow.
Which no-one was denying, or have you misread something?
You are aware that enemies can find you if you use the shout that is made to distract because it creates "noise" on your character? Also, the fact that you have to wait to do the same thing that a Daedric bow can do without waiting further shows the inferiority of the lower class bow.
Yep, which is why you're careful with how you use it.
And once again, never said Long Bow was as effective as Daedric, just that even using a Longbow the stealth ranger can still be OP.
Few FPS do that, very few, And again, most RPgs dont do that unless its in some special mode like NEw Vegas's hardcore mode.
*shrugs*
Few FPS focus on singleplayer, and these days they're even starting to cut AI out of the mix all together - no surprise that most FPS don't bother with stuff like that.
And a number of RPGs will give enemies new abilities to use, dependent on which RPGs you play, and I wouldn't say its most that don't [Unless we're counting games with RPG elements, but that's another story].
I think you need to reread what it is exactly what you typed
*snip*
First off, the point of "mods should edit the game to suit the players want", is exactly what TES does now by allowing people to mod in whatever systems they want.
Never denied that, in fact, I'm the one who said that's the way it is.
Secondly, complexity is subjective, one could argue that making enemies have more HP, and do more damage would cause you to have to dodge/block more, thus making the game more "complex" because you didn't have to do those things in earlier difficulty levels because of enemies low hp/damage output.
Maybe from easy to medium, but after that you'll likely be blocking occasionally and dodging anyway. Having to do it more often isn't exactly changing anything, its just dragging out the fight.
Thirdly, the two "If a player" sentences you have are how Skyrim works already, and the "for this reason" sentence isn't supported by the previous sentences at all. Your entire argument was a mess of contradiction.
Again, you're making no sense.
Yes, the two "If a player" sentences are how Skyrim works now. That was intended.
The "For this reason" sentence is a "This is how it SHOULD work", which is what I put there.
I had also justified this in my explanations of how things do and should work. In short:
As is: Players can increase tedium of battles by self imposed limits, i.e: Only use an iron sword the whole game, or through difficulty levels. Players cannot increase the complexity of the game's systems in the vanilla game in any way.
As it should be: Players can increase tedium of battles by self imposed limits, i.e: Only use an iron sword the whole game. Players can increase the complexity of the game's systems by increasing difficulty.
One cuts out options, one enables them. The one enabling them is, IMO, preferable.
Funny enough, I have one 460 gtx, 4 gigs of ram, and a 3ghz quad core... and had ZERO stuttering, and no CTDs that could be identified as caused by anything but mods. You are doing something wrong.
No mods, so maybe I just encountered different circumstances in my runthrough before the patches to what you did yours hmm? Considering I did nothing but install it, update drivers, and play - I fail to see how I'm doing something wrong.
As for it being "graphically unimpressive" go on top of the Throat of the World and look out on all of skyrim, calling that unimpressive, is BS.
Its as impressive as a picture drawn by my 6 year old cousin.
It looks like a smudged mess of colour with a cloud overlay, and coincidentally I was there just before writing this post.
The scale is impressive, how it looks is not. Whiterun looks like a flat set of boxes on the ground, Bleak Falls Barrow is probably the most visible feature thanks to also being on a mountain top, and it looks ok - at least with what is effectively the LOD draw distance increased through .ini tweaks - and most of the other major cities are either covered by clouds or almost indistinguishable from the surrounding terrain - which might I add looks like it was drawn in with a crayon.
Even after Bethesda's HD Texture Pack DLC, there is still a lot to be desired in the way of visuals. Pre that some parts of Skyrim looked distinct - for entirely the wrong reasons. Namely having 256*256 textures spread across a large rock so that it looks like my first paint project.
To say it wasn't good on consoles is frankly BS. I have yet to see console users complain about it. Everything past the line I stopped at, was option, and not fact.
I guess you and I disagree about what is good then.
If something is severely lacking in features, I don't count it as good. As I had said it was not flawed on a console, and it was as usable as a controller was likely to make it, but short lists with massive models taking up 1/2 the screen, details on items only showing up once said item was selected, lack of inventory sorting options and other such things leave me unable to call even the console UI good. It wasn't flawed, so people won't be complaining about it like they did on the PC, but its definitely not good.
-Firstly, the claim that DLC is different to mod is 100% false. The Dawnguard and Hearthfire DLCs were a simple BSA, and ESP, the same thing 99% other mods use. The DLC work EXACTLY like mods.
I wouldn't say 99% of mods, especially considering the number of graphics enhancement mods out there.
A number use .esps
A number edit ini files
A number request you to copy paste data files, or use the NMM if they're from Skyrim Nexus
It all depends on what the mod does.
-Secondly, many mods do have installers, and indeed, NMM is a installer program for mods that automatically places mods into folders they belong in, you act like you haven't modded since Morrowind, the "dicking around in the data files folder" you describe has LONG been a thing of the past, and mod makers wouldn't mind making installers, because they ALREADY make their mods NMM compatible.
Personally I've always found it quicker to just put the stuff in the Data folder myself, but now we're not talking just having mods available on consoles, but having Bethesda or Microsoft invest in making an installer for consoles too.
And no, mod makers would mind making installers. Arranging their files in a way that NMM will happily install them isn't making an installer. Making an installer is programming the NMM, which is something most mod makers aren't going to want to do.
-Thirdly, yes, it would EXACTLY be a "would you like to overwrite this file", seriously, this is EXACTLY what nexus mod manger does, are you in the dark ages of modding?
If Bethesda or Microsoft invested in making an installer.
-Or Microsoft could make its own version of the Steam workshop.
So now we're not just talking Microsoft letting mods be on Xbox, but Microsoft paying to have mods on Xbox. There is a difference here.
Then you are bad at making builds, or finding skills that work together, a good mage never has to use armor, alteration takes care of that.
That or I care more about having fun and enjoying myself than on min/maxing my effectiveness?
All builds are viable, what you are describing its a build though.
I'm going to assume you meant "Isn't a build though", as otherwise that makes no sense.
In this case, define a build, which is an argument I see getting into semantics and circular reasoning.
"Destruction Magic isn't a build", "Why not?", "It doesn't have synergy", "Why doesn't it have synergy?", "Because its not a build".
Really, in the context of "All builds in Skyrim are viable", it was meant as a "Any way you want to play the game, you can" comment, which is somewhat true, though destruction mages are severely gimped to the point of almost becoming non-viable in higher difficulties.
Otherwise its like saying "All classes are viable in this RPG" or "You can shoot all guns in this FPS" - well no shit, please, tell me something that isn't in every game.
