I just uninstalled Skyrim
- Thread starter Duffeknol
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a pretty long post, so I'll be brief.Ragsnstitches said:
While it's true that you can always look things up in a dictionary (I'm not a walking dictionary either), people (or companies, or entities) often change the meaning of words over time, or use them differently than a dictionary states. In many cases, the dictionary often ends up eventually defining the word based on how it's used in society, and not the other way around (society adapting a word that is introduced in a dictionary).
Take in the case of standards, which we just discussed. Sure, standards might in some cases meaning an "average", but nowadays the word is also used to describe basic functionality, features or a set of described specifications/requirements that a product og piece of a product needs to adhere to. An example is the new "Ultrabooks" (thin laptops), which adheres to standards set by Intel, standards which in this case aren't a product of an average. You decided to bold/underline 'average' when you pulled up your definition. I would rather that you had bolded the word before it ('or'). Since games comes with a variety of gameplay, even within the same genre (two First Person Shooter games are still rarely the same) and appeal to different people, comparing them directly (and by that extension, trying to figure out what the 'average' gameplay is) looks like a futile effort in my eyes
In the case of reviewer versus critic, i guess it's the same. Some people like to use the dictionary, some people is going to point out that in a different language (for example, their own) there might actually be a dictionary distinction between their own version of the two words which they then carry over to english, even if the english dictionary set the two as synonyms
) - Personally, i reject the idea of using synonyms except if there are special grammatical or linguistic reasons to do so, and in most other forums I'm arguing with people, they seem to adhere to the same (unwritten) definition of the difference between a reviewer and a critic. With that said, i of course cannot fault you for it. It's just how i seperate the two. Take it or leave it As for this...
...like i said, i don't consider a critic to be a reviewer. In my eyes, the job of a critic is not to explain anything to a customer. It's to explain things to the CREATOR. The critisize his work and explain what needs changing.
Now, you obviously made a very good point by pointing out that even critique can be subjective. My response to this is to point out once again that as a critic, your critique stays the most objective by pointing out what is missing rather than what is there. Take StarCraft II for example. Some people believe StarCraft II has amazing graphics, some believe it's fairly mediocre. No matter my own opinion of that, as a critic i can still point out that the game is missing an ingame anti-aliasing setting (AA in SC2 has to be enforced through drivers, which isn't optimal). I'm not judging how much it affects the graphics, I'm simply pointing out that it's missing.
Now this can become more tricky with gameplay, but since you mentioned combat (or more specifically, "Crap Melee"), there are in fact ways to look at that in a more scientific manner. Now, whether or not combat is enjoyable is subjective, but as a critic i can still point out if the combat has, say, problems with the difficulty level. For example, if the amount of deaths or the completion time of the game is very similar between newbies and veteran gamers, that points to problems, like for example player skill not having a big impact, either because the amount of options you have in combat is too limited to make any real decisions, or because the difficulty is 'punishing' instead of 'hard'.
It's worth noting that as a critic, it's not my job to tell which of the two options (limited real decisions or punishing difficulty) that is the culprit. That is up for interpretation, and the only way to figure it out is by trial and error. Like i said, perfection doesn't exist, so i can't exactly tell which one needs tuning and in which direction and by how much. All i can do is point out that the difficulty has problems. If the game doesn't have a difficulty setting (either selected actively, or intelligently based on the players performance, a bit like the AI Director in Left 4 Dead), that's also a fault i can point out, since this objectively means that either newbies or veterans will feel left out.
Then there are the more subjective issues, which i as a critic will avoid touching. These are for example single player cheats, and whether or not they belong in a game. Some people like using cheats if they find the difficulty too much or just for giggles, but some people would perhaps use cheats but later feel that they've 'cheated' themselves on the first play-through, and regret it (and wish the game hadn't allowed them to cheat in the first place). It's an interesting debate, but as long as it's a debate, it's not appropriate critic material.
Finally...
...I'm not calling ANY opinion wrong. All opinions are right when they're presented for the right people, typically meaning people with a similar mindset (to avoid using the word "fetish" since it seemed to be inappropriate/misplaced earlier. My apologies for that btw).
There is, however, nothing wrong with noting that they're biased. Now, you shouldn't dismiss people simple because they're biased - after all, every opinion in the world is biased - but it's always worth pointing it out (especially if it's a religious debate, and you are arguing with believers. It always amuses me).
I'll never understand threads like this. It's one thing to start a topic with the goal of discussing the flaws of Skyrim. Maybe bounce around some constructive criticism with other gamers and try to come to a consensus of what the flaws are and perhaps things that could be improved / would have been cool if they did.
It's another to proudly state you've uninstalled the game and puke trollish bile all over the keyboard hoping to get a response.
So you didn't like the game and uninstalled it. Good for you?
It's another to proudly state you've uninstalled the game and puke trollish bile all over the keyboard hoping to get a response.
So you didn't like the game and uninstalled it. Good for you?
I wonder why these threads go on for that long.
This is the basic flow for these threads. I mean seriously, So you don't like [Game].Just because everyone else does, doesn't mean that their opinions matter more than yours. It's basically flame-baiting I say.
And yes, I could have referred from posting, but I guess I am too smug to do so. It's impossible to change one's mind over the internet, so everyone should stop trying to. And in the off chance it DOES work, No single person will care, because it's a random person on the internet.
And YES I didn't think Skyrim was that great, but only because reasons [ R S T] derp.
OP- I don't like [game] for reasons [a b and c]
[reply party A] I agree with Op for reasons [a and c] and also for reason [d]
[reply party B] I disagree with reasons [ A B C D ] and here's why reasons [ x y z]
[reply party C] Oh look this thread again
[reply party A] [quote party C] well I thought this thread matters for reason [ H I J and K}
[reply C] [quote party A] Well you are wrong for reasons [ N O P ]
[repost of either party]
[repost]
[complaint]
[bad troll]
[calling out a bad troll]
[repost]
[reply party A] I agree with Op for reasons [a and c] and also for reason [d]
[reply party B] I disagree with reasons [ A B C D ] and here's why reasons [ x y z]
[reply party C] Oh look this thread again
[reply party A] [quote party C] well I thought this thread matters for reason [ H I J and K}
[reply C] [quote party A] Well you are wrong for reasons [ N O P ]
[repost of either party]
[repost]
[complaint]
[bad troll]
[calling out a bad troll]
[repost]
And yes, I could have referred from posting, but I guess I am too smug to do so. It's impossible to change one's mind over the internet, so everyone should stop trying to. And in the off chance it DOES work, No single person will care, because it's a random person on the internet.
And YES I didn't think Skyrim was that great, but only because reasons [ R S T] derp.
Now I have seen this counter-argument pulled up a couple of times and I just wanted to give my own insight/opinion on your... opinion (Wauw do I know how to start a post or what? *sarcasm*)karoliso said:
So yeah, before I try and explain my sentiments on the subject; *Insert obligatory "This is just my opinion and nothing more" - post*
Now that that's out of the way; As someone who has played Dragon Age extensively (only the first one) and having loved it every bit of the way, that I don't feel to be true.(for me personally, bla bla..) While you do have a certain level of freedom to guide your character morally in Dragon Age, I feel this is much more expansive in Skyrim because of the open-world aspect. (mostly) In Dragon Age you are more constricted to the story and you don't have as much room to create a character of your own imagination and role-play accordingly.
That is probably mainly due to the fact that in Dragon Age the story is already laid before you. You know, depending on what character you create, where you came from, what your background is. Maybe not to extensive detail but in a general sense all that stuff is already there. Because Dragon Age is much more linear they can and do realize a better story (imo) because they don't have to worry about many things Skyrim does.
In Skyrim on the other hand you have no idea who your character is supposed to be and thus you have a blank slate to image your own backstory, motivations, etc. Sure, the game places that choice and task in your hands so if you aren't interested in it or don't want to have to do the work yourself it will come across more shallow. But if you want the freedom to create a character and role-play him or her with unique quirks and manners (like many people seem to enjoy) you can do so much more extensively.
Another thing is that because of Dragon Age's story based nature you have great cut scenes wherein parts of the story are told and your actions in it explained. I like that about it. But again, in Skyrim you are free to do as you please regardless of what part of the story you are playing. You are in control of your characters' reaction to everything. You can approach any quest you are on with any mindset or manner of execution you desire. And if you don't feel like doing the quest you can just fuck off into the woods to climb a mountain and fall of it. Or get attacked by another couple of dragons because you woke them from their beauty sleep. Or any other of the many options you have in the game. And yes, the story isn't as great and the quests aren't as epic as Dragon Age's. But I feel that might be in part because they cater for you choosing your own way.
*glazes over post* .. wall of text.. I do apologize. I really tried getting my point across in fewer words but I failed. Hopefully though, this gives you another insight on matters if you choose to care about it.
I can't recall why the hell I should miss athletics or acrobatics, as they almost always meant nothing to the gameplay anyway. I don't mind the removal of strength because your skill with each individual weapon type should represent your strength with that weapon. You can be a big burly man, but if you don't know how to properly use your two-handed wtfbbqsword, you still won't be effective at taking down your enemy. Personality directly relates to Speech, it is all in how you present yourself to others. Willpower can be easily related to what armor you are wearing. If you have good willpower, but you chose to wear heavy armor to fight off a lich, you will die. Intelligence directly relates to your mana and your ability with each type of magic. Endurance basically is stamina and luck was always pointless.Crono1973 said:
Here is the thing. Sure, on face, all of those attributes are removed. however, it doesn't feel that way when playing. I can still understand how strong my character is or how intelligent they are based upon how the character plays, how they use spells and weapons, how well they persuade others, etc.
Tell me, beyond just seeing a number, what have you lost from them removing certain attributes?
[small]Hint: The answer is nothing of major importance[/small]
[small]Oh, and the arena thing was a joke. Relax.[/small]
Well i haven't directly compared (or even written down) my criticism of games in the first place, except scattered pieces on forums.Fishyash said:
It's important to note, as i said earlier, that my most favorite and least favorite games aren't the same games that i believe have the best or worst game design. Most people will pick out their favorite game, and hold it up as the best game design they have ever seen, and it's my belief that a good critic needs to be able to seperate the two.
In my opinion, for example, the best designed game in the world that i have played (as in, the game that made the most design decisions right given it's formula and time) is Baldur's Gate 2. That doesn't mean that it's the most enjoyable game I've ever played (in fact, it's beaten by several other games i enjoy more, although it's still high up on the list), and i can especially understand why most people would be turned off by it's leveling curve (especially people who were born a few years after the rest of us and are used to modern day games that are more user-friendly and easier to pick up and play). But for it's time, and several years forward, it showed how good RPG design is done. Dragon Age - Origins would have been a much better game if the developers had been taking notes (and if any of the old BG2 developers were on the Dragon Age team, they need to fix their memory and remember what made that game so freaking awesome).
I haven't been able to pick out my worst designed game, because the list there is long and it's probably a close tie between several games, but i would like to mention that Dragon Age II is the most I've been disappointed in terms of game design ever. Disappointment, however, implies that i had expectations, so i can't say it's the worst designed game I've ever seen (likely far from), but it didn't impress me for a 2011 game, that's for sure
)And now, BioWare, you need to get your ass out of the spotlight. Noone permitted you stealing all the attention like you're living like a rock star at day and a prostitute at night!
aren't you being a bit of an ass? I'm not trying to be rude, and I'll admit I misread your question as thinking that you might want to have a conversation on a forum rather than just shutting down entirely. Look, it is fine that you don't like skyrim. I can appreciate a different opinion, I can even understand the criticisms most have (and make some of my own). However, the criticisms I most commonly see touted are the same ones I saw brought against Oblivion. That's all I'm saying. If you hated Oblivion, I'd wager you'll hate skyrim too.Crono1973 said:
All I was doing was taking your analysis that "SKYRIM IS ONLY FOR PPL WHO H8T OBLIVION" and challenging it a bit.
fucking relax, man.
[small]Side note: I loved crono trigger on the DS. Made me sad I hadn't gotten into it when I was still a kid.[/small]
No, I am not being a bit of an ass. I warned that I didn't want to read what I knew you would type. You should have saved the time typing it because I saved the time not reading it.jboking said:
It's nothing personal, it's just that I have heard it all before and I really can't explain why I like attributes and the two skills I mentioned but I do like them and without them, I feel like I am not playing an RPG. The numbers do play a role in progression, for me.
Yeah, the addition of the map on the bottom screen was nice and the battle controls on the bottom screen were nice too, cleared up the top screen for the fantastic graphics Chrono Trigger had. You know, every time I start up a new game (once every 6 months or so) I am amazed at how good the game looks. The sprites look really good, even compared to a flagship title like Final Fantasy VI. To tie in the attributes thing to Chrono Trigger though, one of my favorite things to do is to pick up those attribute raising capsules and watch an attribute go up by one. I get some sort of strange satisfaction out of it. LOL
IgnoringCrono1973 said:
Fair. I find it odd that you can't articulate why you like them, but it is not a big deal.
I have one save right before the race you have in the future because I absolutely loved that little quirky section. My favorite thing about it, though, was the new game+ feature. After two playthroughs I had gotten all of the best weapons, everyone was fully leveled and formulated a way to use every possible party effectively. It was great fun. I can't say I remember popping attribute raising pills, but I do remember managing my team via their attributes. Great game in its own way, far separate from the way that say, oblivion was a great game.
Final Fantasy XIII-2 is supposed to have a time travel element to it. I wonder how it will stack up to Chrono Trigger.jboking said:
I can explain why I like attributes but it always ends in frustration because I obviously don't explain it well enough. I gave up trying, suffice it to say that I like to watch my stats increase because you can't always see the results in battle. When you can (like little white damage numbers popping up) that is even better.
You know though, people threw a damn fit when Oblivion dropped some skills. This time around alot more was dropped and the entire leveling system changed because of it and only a few people like me seem to care. Strange how things change over time.
How about this: Don't use a level scaling system. There is no right way to do it. You can balance it perfectly so that as you level the correct skills, they will add a dynamic amount to you're level based off how useful they'd be in combat with side effects included, and make enemies dynamically scale so they are a fair fight the whole game - but that takes out the whole sense of progression.Darkmantle said:
The whole point of the levels system is not as a score sort of thing, as it mostly is in Skyrim, they are a way to show progression. They are a means to an end. It should not be possible to barge across the world, going everywhere and killing everything. Things like Ice Wraiths should be harder to kill. Anything further from spawn should be harder to kill. Basically, anything but the basics would be harder to kill.
Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but everything in Skyrim is piss easy to kill. A lot of this I feel is for the sake of the level scaling system. Enemies have to be weak enough to be killable, even if you 'wrongly' assign your attributes and face off against high level thugs. What this ends up doing though is making them too easy for anyone who uses combat based classes. Seriously, 1 dual strike from my swords and everything dies. Except Elder Dragons and Ancient Dragons, and maybe a couple of other things.
The solution is to have a fixed health and level. This not only makes it easier to design the game - as you know the strength of the enemy in every encounter, and it does not change - but more fun to play. Little is more satisfying than running from that giant that kicked your ass at level 3, only to come back at level 10 and kill him. It also solves the problem of sinking points into non combat attributes as it is the perfect balance for how much each helps you. Stealing items and weapons may help you get past a tough enemy, but that enemy will be the same when you go off and steal even more and better equipment, as opposed to getting stronger.
The downside of this is that some enemies become pathetically easy - but in Skyrim they already are, they are just unbalanced pathetically easy. Not to mention, shouldn't things get easier as you go along? The whole RPG progression thing? Get stronger and be able to go to more areas?
Level scaling in Skyrim is subtle and unbalanced. It doesn't do enough to provide a fully fair fight every encounter (Some enemies will be really hard or easy to beat no matter which skills you sunk your points into if you're a low level), but it does enough to punish people who level non-combat attributes.
Also, I think you've got something very wrong."And playing it the way its meant to be played...". No. There is no way it is meant to be played. That is the whole appeal of Skyrim. BTW, walking sneaked across the room is power levelling, instead of actually sneaking into a house and stealing items for fun, or sneaking up on enemies for assassinations, or sneaking around to avoid battles. The same can be said of combat skills and magic. There are ways to sit there and grind them, there are ways to go out and use them to level them. The point of the game is that all should be an option, whereas only players who fight often, as opposed to buying and selling stuff and stealing stuff and just travelling, get a far better experience, with many of the latter group restarting their games due to the level scaling making fights impossible (Even though their problem is a lack of skill thanks to the nature of the game).
It is worse than most RPGs though, and Skyrim is heralded by many as an RPG. If it is to carry that label, it is to be held by those standards and Skyrim is a poor RPG. Simply a changing of the guard is hardly anything as opposed toMaxwellEdison said:
sacrificing a squad mate in ME1, then dealing with them not being there in ME2
Deciding to help the golem's creator destroy the forge in DA:O, and dealing with not having golems fight with you at the final battle
find information about their son, or steal it from the other's home
Skyrim by no means has a good world reaction system. The world can quite honestly be called apathetic. Sadly, a good world reaction system is one of the main things Skyrim needs to become a great game. The other being to decide between balance or fun. Which is it Bethesda? Give us zany and crazy abilities, and the ability to make our own, whilst sacrificing balance in favour of having reckless fun, or making the game balanced so that it is not too hard or too easy for any type of character. Currently they are focusing on balance, but failing at it likely in the name of fun thanks to weak enemies anyone can kill and level scaling. They need to decide one way or another which it is to be, and get that shit together. They also need to make combat more interesting.
Agreed. I know I have to type more than that to avoid a low content warning so here goes nothing.SirBryghtside said:
I see people complain about how the acrobatics skill was abused (jumping in place to level up) and that it's good they removed it. When I read stuff like that I think to myself "Why do you care if someone else abuses a mechanic in a single player game?" or "Are you so weak willed that you can't stop yourself from abusing this mechanic?" or "You do know that you could make it a minor skill and then it wouldn't count towards a level up, right?".
Ok, well, there's my non-low content rant.