The vast majority of people that posted had no trouble understanding it was an opinion.Mad World said:
What is it with Elder Scrolls games?
- Thread starter CritialGaming
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Reading through the replies I would suggest you are incorrect. If the OP were merely expressing an "opinion" the thread would have died a very short death. The OP has both expressed an opinion and argued vehemently with people who disagreed with that opinion, and they argued from the position that their "opinion" was objective fact. If you doubt me: just go read the thread again. I'm still not convinced that the OP understand that their opinion is just their opinion and that they don't think that they are objectively right and everybody else is objectively wrong.Phoenixmgs said:
Just looking at the 1st page and there was only one person sorta upset about the TC calling the game garbage.starbear said:
I'm fully convinced the OP doesn't think their opinion is fact:starbear said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.982183-What-is-it-with-Elder-Scrolls-games?page=2#24043303
And I'm fully convinced that despite their protestations that they don't think their opinion is "fact": they think the exact opposite.Phoenixmgs said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.982183-What-is-it-with-Elder-Scrolls-games?page=2#24043303
"Sorry if I upset your little Skyrim bubble, but I simply could not overlook the absolutely poor haphazard construction of a game that is supposed to be so beloved and fantastic."
That isn't an "In My Humble Opinion." Thats stating the game was objectively poorly a haphazard construction of a game and those the "beloved" the game and thought it was "fantastic" are wrong.
The thing is opinions are facts, personal facts for that person. There was definitely things in Bethesda games that are haphazardly constructed like say the engine where a train is an NPC with a hat or how bad some quests constructed (Shamus Young did a lengthy 5-part analysis of how shit the Skyrim Thieves guild quest is). Yes, much of even that is opinion but if Bethesda didn't haphazardly construct some things would there be need for so many mods to fix/improve the game? Even the biggest Elder Scrolls fans think there is at least a few areas that can be improved greatly. And people that really do enjoy the Elder Scrolls series like the games because the elements that the series does do well are the elements most important to them or at worst the series executes those elements better than any other game.starbear said:
Bethesda's open-worlders are arguably some of the greatest 'truest' RP'ers ever made (I count TES and Fallout as little more than reskins). That's one pretty darn major reason they've been so popular. For me, no other game out there even begins to get close to what they offer.
...the core combat's mostly just functional (Fallout 4 has the best core gameplay they've ever come up with), the story's are never good (Morrowind's was superb, but that era of writing's long gone for them), most of the writing's terrible - and terribly acted - but none of that matters a damn when you have the freedom to create your own character and tell your own story at your own pace. In first-person. With mods.
For me, Bethesda make some of the most immersive gaming experiences I've ever played, and regardless how bitter I was when they steered away from core design to chase big, populist dollars and cents (with Oblivion and Fallout 3 - two monumentally dumb games compared to TESIII), that USP of open-world RP'ing is still largely intact (at least where it really counts), and so I still love their output (I actually felt Fallout 4 was one of their best so far, at least when you come to terms with its structure. plus, where the narrative hurts RP freedom, the build mode blows it wide open in terms of literal and figurative player creativity/self-expression).
Maybe it's not enough for some people, but context is everything; why is your character doing a given thing. I had two main characters on Skyrim, both female Nords, and both were, initially, skirmishers - ranged archers who'd often switch to swords once combat had been initiated, meaning the playstyles were nigh on identical to being with. The first was a rather xenophobic loyalist siding with the Stormcloaks, who'd generally behave morally and ethically [unless Imperials or Empire loyalists were involved]. The second was, more or less, just a rather badass looking goth-y character created to do what the first never would, e.g. go through the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood questlines for starters (she was also a vampire, turned before I knew of Dawnguard's imminent features and questlines).
I've not played either character for a few years, I'd reckon, but I could textwall at length about each character; their mentality at the start, the events that shaped them, and how they ended up after several hundred hours. The 'bad girl' archetype ended up as my first TES antihero; I never intended her to ever do the MQ, but by the end of the Dawnguard narrative it felt like she was evolving, and so I think I started the MQ after about 150-190hrs.
You say it offers little player expression - I'd argue it offers self-expression and role-playing potential that barely any other game out there gets close to, certainly where first-person games (which also happen to have major mod support) are concerned. PC's in TES are truly the player's own creation, as is the story they can choose to develop.
Facetious, I know, but you get my point. I'm not arguing all supposed RPG's should do what Bethesda do, but their games - their TES's, at least - are clearly designed to empower the player to tell their own story, at their own pace, with their own created character (re background, psychology, and motivation, not just what they frikkin' look like), and so if someone's bored in a TES one could argue they're likely not quite--- well, getting into the spirit of things. Distinct RP's wholly transform the experience, but the player first has to create them and buy into them (back when I first played - and fell for - Morrowind I'd actually occasionally write vignettes featuring my character at major RP story beats, to expand on their own developing story).
...the core combat's mostly just functional (Fallout 4 has the best core gameplay they've ever come up with), the story's are never good (Morrowind's was superb, but that era of writing's long gone for them), most of the writing's terrible - and terribly acted - but none of that matters a damn when you have the freedom to create your own character and tell your own story at your own pace. In first-person. With mods.
For me, Bethesda make some of the most immersive gaming experiences I've ever played, and regardless how bitter I was when they steered away from core design to chase big, populist dollars and cents (with Oblivion and Fallout 3 - two monumentally dumb games compared to TESIII), that USP of open-world RP'ing is still largely intact (at least where it really counts), and so I still love their output (I actually felt Fallout 4 was one of their best so far, at least when you come to terms with its structure. plus, where the narrative hurts RP freedom, the build mode blows it wide open in terms of literal and figurative player creativity/self-expression).
No player expression? So background and motivation don't matter? I'd argue those are elements profoundly fundamental to any true creation of a role.maninahat said:
Maybe it's not enough for some people, but context is everything; why is your character doing a given thing. I had two main characters on Skyrim, both female Nords, and both were, initially, skirmishers - ranged archers who'd often switch to swords once combat had been initiated, meaning the playstyles were nigh on identical to being with. The first was a rather xenophobic loyalist siding with the Stormcloaks, who'd generally behave morally and ethically [unless Imperials or Empire loyalists were involved]. The second was, more or less, just a rather badass looking goth-y character created to do what the first never would, e.g. go through the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood questlines for starters (she was also a vampire, turned before I knew of Dawnguard's imminent features and questlines).
I've not played either character for a few years, I'd reckon, but I could textwall at length about each character; their mentality at the start, the events that shaped them, and how they ended up after several hundred hours. The 'bad girl' archetype ended up as my first TES antihero; I never intended her to ever do the MQ, but by the end of the Dawnguard narrative it felt like she was evolving, and so I think I started the MQ after about 150-190hrs.
You say it offers little player expression - I'd argue it offers self-expression and role-playing potential that barely any other game out there gets close to, certainly where first-person games (which also happen to have major mod support) are concerned. PC's in TES are truly the player's own creation, as is the story they can choose to develop.
As Metallica once put it... boredom sets into the boring mind?
Facetious, I know, but you get my point. I'm not arguing all supposed RPG's should do what Bethesda do, but their games - their TES's, at least - are clearly designed to empower the player to tell their own story, at their own pace, with their own created character (re background, psychology, and motivation, not just what they frikkin' look like), and so if someone's bored in a TES one could argue they're likely not quite--- well, getting into the spirit of things. Distinct RP's wholly transform the experience, but the player first has to create them and buy into them (back when I first played - and fell for - Morrowind I'd actually occasionally write vignettes featuring my character at major RP story beats, to expand on their own developing story).
Or because people hate Level Scaling.WeepingAngels said:
OT.
While I think Skyrim is ok. It certainly isn't amazing. If you want more action orientated RPGs then I would recommend something like Dragon's Dogma or the souls games. Or of course, The Witcher 2 & 3. If you want something more classical RPG there are so many options; Baldurs Gate 1&2, Planescape Torment, KotOR, Dragonage Origins, Divinity Original Sin, Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity.
However, like many above have said, I do highly suggest giving The Elder Scrolls III Morrowind a go. Just be aware it has a very... odd combat system of having the appearance of Skyrimesq action combat but in reality it's a dice roll. Just keep your stamina up and you'll be fine. Also it is old school in that there is almost no hand holding, you start out incredibly weak (average citizen weak). It is quite difficult for new players to get into it but if you manage to get past that noob wall it becomes such a great experience. Lot's of dungeons (though not all) have stories, even if just small ones told through the environment design. For example as you mentioned in Skyrim there are lots of caves that are filled with bandits... because...? But in Morrowind, one of the first caves you are likely to run into has 3 or 4 bandits, there are drugs (moonsugar) and a cage with slaves in. While it may not be written down you can probably see what's going on. Also the faction system is much better. In both Oblivion and Skyrim you can be head of all factions even if they oppose each other. For example the Dark Brotherhood likes to kill people and the thieves guild opposes killing on the job. And you can do the Mage's guild with out using magic and the fighter's guild without swinging a sword. Morrowind... nope! Some factions don't like each other and will be hostile to you if your join an opposing one and you need to have certain skills leveled up enough to advance in a given faction, so you need to be good at using magic to advance in the mages guild.
Anyway the point is; screw Skyrim, go play Morrowind!
Sorry, what background or motivation? In both Oblivion and Skyrim, your character is a blank slate who's only defined characteristic is that you are being punished for reasons you don't know. There's no conceivable reason to follow either faction in Skyrim unless you already are familiar with the backgrounds of either (and a new player aren't supposed to - it's either join the Viking guy who seems nice, or join the Roman guy who tried to execute you). I could, in my head canon, come up with my own reasons to justify why my character exists in this world and what their personality is, but the game doesn't really offer outlets for that expression beyond changing my character's hairstyle.Darth Rosenberg said:
Take the quests. Whenever you start a quest in Oblivion or Skyrim, you are most often given only two dialogue options: "yes I'll get right on that" or "no, I won't do that yet". A Hobson's choice is not a very good way to express your character. It means the only way you can role play is to be selective about which quests you do, whereas most other games let you at least play the quests but with some flavour added. Decent RPGs often let you do things in different ways: "Yes I'll do this for you, and pro bono!/Hmm, pay me more and I might consider it!" or "no thank you/go fuck yourself." Even if they are going to railroad you through certain quests, they at least give your character the option to complain about it, be pragmatic about it, or happily go along with it.
---ergo the player is able to wholly define both character background and motivation (which then changes how they play the game) - I thought my point about genuine player creativity was clear.maninahat said:
Personally I don't really care about newcomers at all, given I and so many others have been familiar with TES from at least Morrowind on. For such a long running series a newcomer has to expect and accept a learning curve with regards to the history and cultures of Tamriel.
However, whilst I'd say Morrowind's by far the best start as far as RP goes (ideally you don't want any pressure on the player to take a specific course of action in order to leave plenty of room for the player to coherently build a story for their creation. the greater the pressure, the less wiggle room the player has to cohesively relate it to their creation), Skyrim for newcomers at least clearly establishes the basics of the circumstance, and so the choice between escaping with your would-be executioner or the local rebels doesn't require any prior knowledge, especially given you ostensibly learn the same amount of information from both characters if you follow them to Riverwood, receive the same trigger point for the MQ, and that the choice ultimately has no real consequence.
A newcomer is also very safe given the general conceit that the PC themselves is new to Skyrim, so detailed information on the very opening isn't required at all.
The underlined pretty much sums up the entire raison d'etre of TES and its structure.
No game will ever really implement total freedom which also has various forms of consequences, i.e. to the narrative and to the world. For obvious technical and financial reasons all game design is a compromise to some degree, and so whilst TES allows - nay, encourages - the player to do their own work in creating their character's history and motivations (by way of providing the player with a blank slate), and provides them with a non-linear open-world to explore at their own pace, the method of supporting various RP's is to provide 'tools' for the player to use. The MQ, factions, sidequests, locations, skillsets, and so on. To me these are all elements the player uses to tell their own story at their own pace. TES is designed for multiple playthroughs, with different characters suiting different factions, locations, skillsets, and so on.
Bethesda give you the canvas, and the tools to create.
That would make Fallout 4 the superior role-player[footnote]Something else which supports that notion is the game's respective factions leading to different endings - none of the TES's from Morrowind on offer that.[/footnote] - and there's merit in that perspective; Skyrim gives the player no choice about dialogue tone whatsoever, whereas F4's infamous dialogue system at least gives more options with how to react. However, the end result is more or less identical as you only have two quest states; you're either progressing the quest, or you are not.
For me, I personally don't really see Skyrim's text as a literal expression of what the player character says; it is a representation of basic communication, almost always deprived of tone - so as to not step directly on the toes of the player's RP. This approach only works with a mute PC, so any game with a voiced character can't really tread that path (I'd argue the Mass Effect trilogy - with regards to the player POV - was a failure given Shepard was never our creation, nor the writer's).
Back to being selective: I feel that approach is perfect for a true open-worlder, especially when it comes to replayability. Does it make sense for a conventionally moral character to take part in the Thieves or assassin's guilds? Generally, absolutely not, so all the flavour text in the world doesn't matter a jot - if the questline involves thievery, extortion, and/or wanton murder then no amount of flavour with reactions really makes any sense relative to a given RP.
What you can do is create rather immense and leisurely arcs. As I said previously, I had a character who ended up an antihero, yet she was initially created just to play through factions I hadn't joined, as well as play the game in a rather different, callously amoral and violent way. I had no plan whatsoever to do the MQ or have her 'help' people in the typical RPG ways. And yet when playing through certain factions, sidequests, and progressing various encounters, the story and character began to evolve in ways I hadn't anticipated or planned.
And so whilst factions (or the MQ itself) may be off bounds for certain RP's at the start - a character arc can change things profoundly. I can't think of any other game that offers such scope and agency, certainly not one with graphics worth a damn, incredible mod support, and a bias for first-person (which to me is always immeasurably more immersive/engaging, ergo the ideal POV for RP'ing).
The level scaling was there in Skyrim though it was greatly improved. You can't ignore all the hate people gave the forests.spartandude said:
"Dimension jumping has taken its toll on Stamm Bladecaster. His first adventure was nearly 30 years ago, when he and his party explored the sacred dungeons and defeated the Grey Lord for his firestaff. But Stamm didn't have a chance to enjoy his bounty. He was yanked from that dimension to the city of Waterdeep, where he joined a new party on a quest to defeat the Beholder. When the Beholder was slain, Stamm was taken to a new dimension, met a new party and they journeyed along the western shores of Faer?n. With each and every leap Stamm hoped he would end up home. But instead he would end up in new lands, with a new face, facing new adventures.maninahat said:
This time when Stamm woke up, he found himself on the back of a carriage with his hands bound, facing execution. Skyrim was the name of this land. Stamm recognized the name. He had been...close to this place before. He closed his eyes, preparing for the moment that would come, when he would make his escape..."
I've been playing the same character in video role-playing games since I played Dungeon Master for the first time on the Amiga. Dungeon Master gave you the ability to play "Dungeons and Dragons" without having to play with friends. Which was great: because when I was growing up I didn't have that many friends. Have you heard of "Dungeons and Dragons?" You need to understand that games like Skyrim evolved from table-top role playing games.
In Dungeons and Dragons you "rolled" a character and put those details onto a character sheet. Then you joined a group of friends (one of them was the "Dungeon Master", not to be confused with the game with the same name) and you "became your character" and you "pretended" or "role-played" that character. The Dungeon Master would tell a story. Then you would come to a fork in the road and the dungeon master would ask "do you want to go left or go right?" The player would say "can I go straight ahead instead?" and if they could then the dungeon master would adapt the game to suit. Your alignment would play a part in how you would play the game. Lawful good characters would be "goody too shoes" and would "tut tut" bad behaviour of the chaotic evil characters, and might even refuse to play with them.
And here's the thing. Table top role playing was fun. You got to be someone else for a few hours.
And that same sense of fun carried over to when I started to play video role playing games. I'll never forget the first time when playing Eye of Beholder II when I decided to dig up some graves, and Stamm my lawful good paladin exclaimed that "it was wrong." That little subtle moment made me realize that I could actually play "lawful good" by doing "lawful good" actions: I developed my own little personal code that I've role-played from game to game ever since. So Stamm never attacks first. (Unless he is hunting.) He never steals from houses (but does loot dungeons) and never desecrates graves. He will never ever turn down a quest if it means helping out a good person. He will never ever kill to complete a quest unless that person is either threatening his life or the life of another person.
So when you ask "what background or motivation": for me I've been playing the same character for 30 years. I've given a primer on his background and his motivation is to finish the quest in the hope that this time he will get a chance to go home. Does that sound a bit silly written down? Sure does. But for those of us who love playing games like this: this is what it is all about. We create our own motivations and our own back stories and we become the characters we create: just for a little while.
Yes, I'm familiar with Dungeons and Dragons.starbear said:
The point I was making is that whilst a player can come up with whatever background they like, Skyrim doesn't provide anything to facilitate that. Compare it to Fallout: New Vegas, where I decided to make the stupidest hero in the Wasteland. Whilst the background is purely my invention, the game built in plenty of opportunities to actually act stupid - with quests and conversations providing actually stupid options. The game allowed me to trick a spec ops soldier into murdering his friend "for a joke", fail to prevent a tram exploding because I didn't bother to try finding a bomb, pissed off Caesar enough for him to order my death because I kept waking him up to ask questions, and allowed a suicide bomber in to blow up the building I was meant to be guarding.
In Skyrim, I'd never have any of those options during quest or dialogue. My stupid character would not work in the setting because every-time I spoke to someone, they'd switch into a sensible, obedient guy, (and that's the case no matter what character I role play as).
maninahat said:
Of course it does. I just finished explaining how it does exactly that for me. Are you claiming Skyrim doesn't allow me to roleplay as Stamm Bladecaster, the multi-dimension-hopping Paladin? So what exactly have I been doing when I've been playing the game?
:: shrug ::
Literally different strokes for different folks. I have no problem role-playing Stamm in Skyrim. I don't take the dialog trees literally. I make my own options. Play by my own rules and personal code. If you can't do that, well that's okay.
Well then Skyrim isn't the game for you. I'm glad you found a game you like better. But I've explained my backgrounds and motivations for playing. What else are you wanting from us? Am I objectively wrong for loving video games that provide a blank slate for me to play however I like? What is it you want me to say?
What do you mean, what do I want from you? I'm not saying you can't like Skyrim or that Skyrim is objectively a bad game. I'm simply saying Skyrim isn't anywhere near as good at facilitating player expression as other RPGs.starbear said:
If you want to go back to comparing to D&D, now that's a system versatile enough to permit lots of player decisions. In D&D, I can make a character who accepts a quest, only to then backstab the quest giver, frame his dead body for an unrelated crime, and then hire someone else to do the quest for me using the quest giver's own money. In Skyrim, I can say "yes, I'll take on this quest" and then... do the quest and get a reward. I don't expect video games to be anywhere near as flexible or spontaneous as a D&D game, but I appreciate it if they at least they'd try and give more options within the game. Hell, they managed this to a limited extent in Fallout 3, so why didn't Bathesda keep trying at that instead of stripping it out in Fallout 4, and even more so in Skyrim?
You forgot to say "in your opinion." Because in my opinion Skyrim is fantastic at facilitating player expression, more so than other RPG's. You aren't making an objective observation. You are making a subjective one.maninahat said:
In Skyrim I can completely ignore the quests and do whatever you like. How much more flexible do you want?
Darth Rosenberg and starbear, what y'all are describing is to me a sandbox RPG...
And I get that. But to me it doesn't explain 30 MILLION [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games].
In my experience, the majority of gamers are empty-headed and shallow with varying degrees of attention deficits. Most are not sophisticated enough to BOTH think up an elaborate story AND suspend reality enough to play it out in their head, without any direction from the game itself. Even with table top D&D, you didn't have to do that. You could buy modules with pre-rendered stories and play those.
Now I could be way wrong on the statistics, but my guess is that the percentage of people who hard-core role play Skyrim like y'all do is less than 5%. So what are the other 95% doing? My guess is wandering around aimlessly doing fetch quests and looking at scenery. And many probably do it in short stretches as they hop around among the 500 games in their Steam library.
And I get that. But to me it doesn't explain 30 MILLION [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games].
In my experience, the majority of gamers are empty-headed and shallow with varying degrees of attention deficits. Most are not sophisticated enough to BOTH think up an elaborate story AND suspend reality enough to play it out in their head, without any direction from the game itself. Even with table top D&D, you didn't have to do that. You could buy modules with pre-rendered stories and play those.
Now I could be way wrong on the statistics, but my guess is that the percentage of people who hard-core role play Skyrim like y'all do is less than 5%. So what are the other 95% doing? My guess is wandering around aimlessly doing fetch quests and looking at scenery. And many probably do it in short stretches as they hop around among the 500 games in their Steam library.