Nope, it has nothing to do with what you said. Of course, if the OP hadn't bought the game and played through it, he would be told that his opinion is invalid because he didn't put enough time into it.
You're funny. Saying someone shouldn't have bought the game doesn't invalidate what they thought of it. I'm not a skyrim fanboi coming here to rage at people saying bad things about my game.
Oh, if I had to criticize his opinion, it would be the fact that he tries to pass it off as fact, as other people have pointed out before me.
Everybody passes their opinion off as fact unless they state "just my opinion" every other sentence. You should be smart enough to know that everything people post is opinion unless otherwise stated. That would be too easy though, right?
Yeah, I also would like to add to the odd drive to play games we don't like just because everyone else does. I've done it a lot and I really want to stop. I hated Arkham Asylum, but I still bought Arkham City hated that, too. I was reluctant to buy the Saints Row games because I didn't really like the idea of a jokey GTA, but lo and behold, I bought it and it turns out I don't like a jokey version of GTA. I just need to start buying games I absolutely 100% know I will like.
I haven't even started Skyrim (still waiting on patches, etc), but I didn't buy it because it was popular, I bought it because I liked Oblivion/Fallout/New Vegas. I've yet to see any Oblivion fans complain about it's inferiority to that game, just it's inferiority to a game that came out over ten years ago that I haven't played (and have no convenient way to play). If anything, I probably shouldn't give Morrowind a try because I enjoy the more recent games so much. I might not like it.
However, I didn't really like Mass Effect 1, but I really liked Mass Effect 2. And I loved Assassin's Creed 1, but hated 2. So I don't know. I just wish the quality level was more uniform and that reviews were better written than Excel spreadsheets and Nintendo Power back issues. It's why I like Yahtzee. I know his tastes and I know what he likes and dislikes. I can more accurately judge what a game will be like than a bunch of digits and decimal places.
Dragons aren't even worth a single mention unless this is the first game you've played with dragons in it. It's like getting excited over zombies in a shooter.
That's not true, every other game that has dragons are "take turns hitting each other" games. This is the first time you can actually use action controls to fight a dragon. You can track the dragons flight path with a bow, if it begins to hover - blast it with magic or a shout, when it lands wail on it. When it flies overhead spraying the ground with fire... run, duck and cover, avoid death.
The dragons in Skyrim are different than dragons in other games. These aren't turn based dragons, these are real time dragons you fight from an action pespective. It's the first time it felt like this:
Secret of Mana comes to mind. Sure, it's a 2D game but it's not turn based. You can say that fighting dragons is unique in Skyrim but can't you say that about any enemy?
Look. I don't like Skyrim either. Or the Elder Scrolls at all for that matter. But reading this thread title and OP, all I could think was... why are you sharing this, exactly? I just uninstalled Alpha Protocol. FUCK Alpha Protocol was horrible. I'm not making a goddamn thread about it.
Point is, you're fanbaiting. Very hard to provoke genuine debate and discussion when that's going on.
Meh, immersion is overrated. I can't tell you how many lame complaints I've heard about regenerating health, or cutscenes breaking immersion and saying that the game was bad because of it. What, the main character touching a med kit and having all of his wounds magically disappear is fine, but standing behind a rock and healing is just too much? I think you're overreacting because you can't...slaughter everyone though...really? We have GTA for that.
Those are the complaints of people who mistake immersion frem realism. Immersion isn't overrated, but some things that people THINK are immersion actually aren't immersion at all. It's simply Yahtzee-fanboys who tries to act cool, but doesn't get what Yatzhee actually meant, and now they think they're experts.
Regenerating health has little to do with immersion and cutscenes MIGHT break immersion if implemented poorly (Bad Company 2, I'm looking at ya!). But again: Realism and immersion is not the same thing.
That's not true, every other game that has dragons are "take turns hitting each other" games. This is the first time you can actually use action controls to fight a dragon. You can track the dragons flight path with a bow, if it begins to hover - blast it with magic or a shout, when it lands wail on it. When it flies overhead spraying the ground with fire... run, duck and cover, avoid death.
It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.
...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.
The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.
- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay
Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.
You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).
I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).
Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.
I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.
So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?
So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.
I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.
Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
That's not true, every other game that has dragons are "take turns hitting each other" games. This is the first time you can actually use action controls to fight a dragon. You can track the dragons flight path with a bow, if it begins to hover - blast it with magic or a shout, when it lands wail on it. When it flies overhead spraying the ground with fire... run, duck and cover, avoid death.
Those aren't action based controls though, they are turn based that mimic them. There is a "Select target" "auto attack" where damage is done. If you plan to shoot a dragon with an arrow in Skyrim, aim your shit and don't miss. You knock the arrow, you track the target, you time the shot, and you choose when to release, every shot. IN melee, you decide how many times you need to power attack, shout, bash, etc. based on your stamina bar, not a "cool down" timer. Under its surface WoW is still the same turn based combat model as MMOs from 1998 used.
Did you actually play the game on PC? You mention the child killing mod, but I didn't see anywhere you mentioned having the pc version.
If you did have the pc version at some point, then I'm sorry you feel that way and I understand.
If you didn't have the pc version, then please, please for the love of god listen to me, on PC it is the single greatest game I have played since oblivion, if not much better than oblivion. The ps3 version is a shitty piece of garbage-y shit. I returned it for the pc version because I could not stand the ps3 version any longer, because it crashed every hour and had bugs up the wazoo. I have played it for over 27 hours on the pc (I'm a student and was only able to play for about a week) and I have had no crashes and no real bug issues or slowdowns.
But if you still hate it then still, I understand why, it makes sense.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.
...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.
The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.
- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay
Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.
You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).
I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).
Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.
I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.
So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?
So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.
I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.
Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to one-handed weapons if you so wish"?
Crafting is completely messed up. All I did was spam iron daggers until I got a high smithing rating and got myself the Daedric set which turned the game into a joke at that point (combat-wise).
Oh how I truly hate when people just say DRAGONS and think it's a point in the games favour. Skyrim turns dragons into another random mob that you need to kill over and over again. In fact bears pose a bigger threat than dragons do.
Yes, those are valid opinions, well accept maybe the last one.
Really so, you just want another game that dragons are a major part of, but then you only have maybe 3 or so epic battles with them at most.
I much rather have a game where I could have an epic battle with a dragon at any time, rather that scripted dragon battle after scripted dragon battle.
The unscripted-ness of the game is main reason I find it so awesome. I like having a few games where I'm not lead on through the dance, but instead I can make my own dance and random dancers barge in on occasion where I have to change the steps in my dance.
Crono1973 said:
Dragons aren't even worth a single mention unless this is the first game you've played with dragons in it. It's like getting excited over zombies in a shooter.
Really, other than Skyrim, I can name around 3 three games that have reasonably epic battles with dragons, both Dragon Age games, and somewhat WoW.
If there are any more, than I've never heard of them, or I have but they didn't hold my attention enough to remember them.
Zombies are a horrible comparison, because these days in gaming, nothing has been done more to death than zombies. It seems every game these days, developers or publishers think they need some form of a zombie in them or a zombie mode to be played later. I remember seeing at list of at least 20 zombie games and/or add-ons, and that is just the mainstream triple A titles. At least the undead/zombies in the Elder Scrolls games make sense and weren't added on because of the craze. Dragons weren't even added on as part of the dragon craze(which is really just starting sort of), because dragons were a part of the Elder Scrolls lore before the dragon craze.
Dragons come nowhere close to the zombie craze in games.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
Yeah, we aren't going to agree because I loved the attributes. It cool though, different strokes and all that.
Thing is though, I did like the perks in Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3. They were there and they were like little bonuses. In Skyrim they are far too important.
It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.
...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.
The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.
- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay
Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.
You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).
I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).
Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.
I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.
So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?
So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.
I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.
Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?
Ok, well I didn't think the dragon fights were epic so...there's nowhere to go from here. Is there something epic about aiming your bow towards the sky as opposed to aiming at an enemy on the ground? Is it just the size of the dragons because I have seen bigger enemies on Gran Pulse.
Dragons in this game are a gimmick. They aren't special and they soon become a random enemy. Special things are usually rare. What if Sephiroth became a standard enemy that showed up in random battles, wouldn't that make him less special?
Look. I don't like Skyrim either. Or the Elder Scrolls at all for that matter. But reading this thread title and OP, all I could think was... why are you sharing this, exactly? I just uninstalled Alpha Protocol. FUCK Alpha Protocol was horrible. I'm not making a goddamn thread about it.
Point is, you're fanbaiting. Very hard to provoke genuine debate and discussion when that's going on.
It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.
...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.
The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.
- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay
Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.
You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).
I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).
Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.
I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.
So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?
So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.
I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.
Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.
Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.
In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.
Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?
Aside from the benefits to specialization that I mentioned above, the difference is that getting a perk confers a noticeable bonus. Marginally increasing your attributes isn't going to result in a noticeable difference until you've gone up a few levels. Get a perk, however, and you'll usually immediately realize it. You'll start doing more damage with Sneak Attack Criticals, or get a massive armor bonus since you're an Alteration specialist without any armor, or suddenly be able to cast Expert level Destruction magic without exhausting your entire mana pool, or enter bullet time when using bows. The more noticeable perks results in a greater feeling of accomplishment for leveling, which results in an increased incentive to level up.
Also, enough with the 'so you didn't like it big deal don't make a thread about it'. Shut up.
This is a forum for gaming discussion. I disliked a game and I stated my reasons. I wanted to write this thread because I was frustrated with the game, and after posting it, I felt better. This had led to a discussion.
How about I turn your own weapons against you: if you don't want to read about people having a negative opinion on a game you like, don't click those threads and don't reply. This point is as moot as yours.
Sorry man, the internet doesn't work like that. Hypocrisy is one of the cornerstone of the average poster, along with arrogance, ignorance and egotism.
If you're getting annoyed by all the people quoting you then maybe you should have been a bit more savvy about it instead of simply ranting and expecting a reasonable response. Like begets like.
Also, being a hypocrite never made anyones point more respectable.
Athinira said:
Fishyash said:
There is lots that Skyrim did wrong. You can criticize a lot of games with ease. In fact (broken record mode) it is a lot easier to criticize a game than to look past criticisms and compliment something.
You can come up with more criticisms for your favourite game than compliments for your least favourite game. I can come up with way more criticisms for Skyrim than I can compliment it, even though I think it is one of the better games of 2011 that I played.
That's funny, because whenever i ask Skyrim fanboys to humor me and critisize the game, they have a very hard time coming up with criticism for it. I wonder how that can be?
And when they finally do come up with criticism for it, it's always that they wanted more of it, which isn't really criticism. It's like being asked "What do you dislike about sex" and replying "I don't think i have enough, and I'd like to have more of it".
Now, i obviously just like every other gamer have a lot of games that i enjoy a lot. But i can critisize every single game i enjoy, including the games that I've played in my time that i consider the very best designed ones ever (which doesn't mean those were the ones i enjoyed the most). I'm the type of person who really NEEDS a well designed game to have ultimate fun. Merely basing a game on a great idea/concept isn't enough, and i can critisize the games i didn't enjoy far more than the games i DID enjoy.
.
You see, it's about emotional attachment. People who love a game have a very hard time critisizing it, and people who hate a game have a very hard time complimenting it because those people are emotionally attached. On the other hand, people who are emotionally detached (like me) have no problems doing either. That doesn't mean our opinion is worth more to you than someone else, but emotional detachment helps maintain a less skewered viewpoint.
*I had to restart my game entirely due to a gamebreaking bug that I completely missed until well after I had overwritten the earliest un-bugged save. 40 hours lost.
*After about a week I got back into the game. Then the PS3 fuck-you-in-the-ass lag hit me after roughly 50 more hours of playing. Started a new character.
*Patch came out and alleviated the worst of the lag for me, but I had invested far too much time in my newest character to go back to the old characters. Realised at a point that I didn't like how I invested my Perks. Started a new character.
3 separate events that caused me to lose over a hundred of hours of play, yet I still came back to the game.
*Generic Plot, cookie cutter characters, sloppy writing, iffy to plainly bad voice acting, too shallow and superficial reasons to emotionally invest in.
*Piss poor intro.
*Serious lack in focus testing or even outsider opinions. Most decisions are obviously made in house, without external input.
*The melee is somewhat unresponsive. I have killed 7 different companions (who I liked tagging along with me) due to the seemingly arbitrary hit detection.
*Stealth is just ridiculously OP and enemy AI in regards to stealth is non existent. Companions always break your infiltration and the AI barely react to their mates getting brutally taken down by an arrow to the face.
*A good 20%-30% of the perks available are virtually useless.
*Saw a pack of wolves kill a dragon. Made me feel far less of a badass.
*Tried to side with Stormcloaks in the Civil war. Game bug prevented me from continuing it past the 2nd quest line. Couldn't even switch sides at that point.
*The broken magical defence (pre 1.3 patch) meant I was been instant killed by other mages with magical attacks that are seemingly impossible to evade.
*One quest seemed to be dead set on killing me. I HAD to take damage in order to complete the quest (involved explosions at close range). Because I hadn't invested in HP the damage inflicted was obviously over 100 points, meaning it killed me with no chance of progressing in that quest.
*NPCs don't vary much from town to town.
*I really can keep going with this, but the point has been made
All in all I nobody can say that Skyrim is polished... or even refined (or balanced). However, I still love the game because:
-I can Role Play effectively. So far I have been a young and ambitious nord adventurer/mercenary, a wizened and humble Breton with a deep understanding of the Arcane and a Strong willed and Honour Bound Nord Warrior with a primal desire. I have plans to play as a downtrodden woodelf thief with dreams of fortune, A bitter Dark Elf Assassin who dreams of normality, A retired imperial battlemage who feels compelled to step in on the War that he has long avoided.
-Taken every point I have said against the combat and stealth system of the game, I can almost entirely forgive it after battling my way through a horde only to confront a mighty foe, after a volley of swings and deflections I finally land the killing blow, lopping off the head of my worthy opponent, all in a satisfying cinematic crescendo. These aren't uncommon, but are still rare enough for the satisfaction to remain.
-I don't Skill grind. I favour a natural progression. If I feel the need to improve I seek training from an expert (and I don't take the money back either). This makes my character feel more human.
-I act on quests based on the urgency of the event in question and my characters moral alignment. This makes every adventure I take vary in terms of my characters involvement in it
-I got lost on multiple occasions in the game, trying to find my way back onto the roads or out of a forest (I don't use the maps that often). In those moments I have encountered numerous things, both random and fixed, that left me in awe. Few games manage this for me.
-Despite the frailty of some of the earlier dragons, I have had some amazing and memorable confrontations in the most incredibly locations in the game. Truly epic stuff.
-Despite the still lacking variety in interactive NPCs, I can still pick out characters who are actually likeable, even deep, if only for a short amount of time.
-The Dungeon designs are great. Despite the re-used textures and designs, I still haven't gone through 2 different dungeons that felt alike.
Regardless of what others have said, I think Bethesda has created a great game. Not because of polish, or production values, or even plot, but because it offers a well realised and ambitious frame for a Role Player. It doesn't guide me down a set path, at no point do I feel constraint and every action I take feels like I'm exercising my own will in this virtual world. By no means did it get it perfectly... at almost every level it could do with improvements, some more so then others.
But the game still stands out to me. Besides other TES games or Fallout 3/New Vegas, there are no other games that fill that spot that Skyrim has created in me. Other games have better stories, better gameplay, better graphics, better overall execution... but for me, nothing is as engrossing as Skyrim. It perfects nothing yet excels at what it aims to do. It is greater then the sum of all its parts.
I appreciate the game for what it is but I'm not blind to it's flaws either. However I like if not love the game as it is and any improvement on the formula will only make me like it more. Do not dismiss it as some sort of psychological affliction... I find that notion grossly offensive, it's also a massive cop out in any topic as you would like keeping picking on the flipside of any point made and imply that it's all in our heads.
Which funnily enough, it all is...
Your not a special person. Critical analyses is very easily attained. The difficulty is tempering your critical eye as to not detract from the overall piece. A fair judgement is made on all it's merits against it's deficiencies. Having a grudge against deficiencies that inhibits your ability to see it's merits makes you unfit to judge. "High standards" means you hold something to a standard that is above average or, more often then not, your idea of perfection. Nothing will ever meet an individuals view on perfection, let alone the masses, so again that makes you unfit to judge. Not to mention the "average" is also entirely subjective (unless you can pull out statistics and documented facts), meaning it's just as unreliable in making a fair judgement on something as it would be if you judged it against perfection.
You're welcome to an opinion, but your opinion is just your interpretations and experience, not mine. You might share it with a thousand other people, but you don't share it with me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
