What is it with Elder Scrolls games?

[sanquin]

Why I like Skyrim:

-A big fantasy world to explore. You say the random caves you find don't have any story, but they do. They're just not...super obvious. You find it in notes, what the enemies say, what furniture or other stuff is around, etc. Granted, a lot of the stories are pretty weak, but there are quite a few interesting ones as well.
-Making my own story. I only followed the main story once, to see what it was. Other than that, I always make my own story with the help of mods.
-On that topic, mods. Yes Bethesda sucks for relying on the modding community to make their games great. But mods still make the game great. Frostfall making cold places actually cold and dangerous, player homes, immersion mods that add immersive fluff to the game, combat mods that make it a bit of a challenge (I played a sword and shield tank in my last game, and I actually had to block and dodge), graphics mods to make the game look gorgeous, and the list goes on. I'm not huge on modding my games, but for Bethesda's games it's normal for me to at the very least have around 40~50 mods installed. For others it's normal to have 100+ even.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. Combat in Skyrim is terrible even compared to the witcher 3. (W3's combat isn't exactly the best either) The world is also less interesting than W3, clearly far less work was put into it. The stories can't even compare to witcher 3 either. But you have to keep in mind that W3 was released 5 years after Skyrim. Back then Skyrim was the shit for fantasy rpgs. But then W3 came out, and it blew Skyrim out of the water in most aspects. So yea...playing W3 first and Skyrim after that, I can see why you don't like it. But plenty of people do, so don't go saying the game is oh so terrible when YOU don't like it.

 

[Hawki]

I think I encountered a dragon for the first time in a game in Spyro the Dragon or Ocarina of Time, both of which released in 1998.

I feel embarassed now.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I'll be honest: vanilla Skyrim hasn't aged well at all. Still better than Oblivion, but in light of recent RPGs, especially Witcher 3, its luster has long since faded. In its prime Skyrim was the king of open world RPGs: the world was huge, the graphics massively improved, the mechanics massively improved, there was so much to do and see. Compared to Witcher 3 Skyrim still has a far wider variety of playstyles.

But since then other games have done nearly everything better. Dark Souls became the new king of melee combat. Witcher 3 blew the storytelling and draw distance out of the water. Dungeon Crawlers do the loot gathering better. The Nordic tundra aesthetic was dull even upon release, and games like Darkest Dungeon have since then done far more interesting visual aesthetics.

The one thing Bethesda RPGs still have over nearly every other game is the modding community, which makes their games last far far longer than any DLC could ever hope for. Skyrim's base mechanics give a solid enough base that the game can be made enjoyable again and again with the use of rebalancing, new armors, spells and weapons, graphics improvements etc. etc. I'd compare the Bethesda RPG model to a coloring book: you can appreciate the black and white artwork as it is, but coloring it in will make it immensely more appealing.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't get Bethesda games either. I feel they are horrible at writing, which is a big part for making a good RPG. Speaking of Bethesda making RPGs, there's not much role-playing in them either. Errant Signal did a video about how poor the role-playing is in Fallout 4. And the combat is not very good, which I think is definitely the majority opinion in that regard. Even Witcher 3 has shit combat IMO, and it's better than Skyrim. I really don't understand why Skyrim got such high scores across the board when just about any reviewer/gamer would basically say how much better Skyrim would be with a combat system from some other game. Thus, if say the next Elder Scrolls comes out with some really great combat system, is the game then only like a 97 or 98 vs a 96? Because if the next game were to have great combat, that would make the game more than 1 or 2 points better.

Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean its garbage.

Yeah, it kinda does. If I hate a game/movie/song/etc, it is indeed garbage. Just because other people like it doesn't change how I feel about it. There's no quantifiable, objective way to rate a piece of art.

Also I hold firm to the belief that if you feel the need to add in a fast travel system so that your players won't get bored travelling across the game world, then your game world is either too big or doesn't have enough content in it. Perhaps both.

I completely agree on this. Every part of a game from every area and object in the world should be there for some specific reason and nothing should be filler. I enjoyed FarCry 3 but the game would've been much better as a linear experience, I couldn't care less about exploring whatsoever, just take me to the next bit of actual content. Whereas I loved exploring and roaming around in Horizon even though there was really no rewards gotten (like loot), plus the open world was actually required to house the enemies.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I'll be honest: vanilla Skyrim hasn't aged well at all. Still better than Oblivion, but in light of recent RPGs, especially Witcher 3, its luster has long since faded. In its prime Skyrim was the king of open world RPGs: the world was huge, the graphics massively improved, the mechanics massively improved, there was so much to do and see. Compared to Witcher 3 Skyrim still has a far wider variety of playstyles.

But since then other games have done nearly everything better. Dark Souls became the new king of melee combat. Witcher 3 blew the storytelling and draw distance out of the water. Dungeon Crawlers do the loot gathering better. The Nordic tundra aesthetic was dull even upon release, and games like Darkest Dungeon have since then done far more interesting visual aesthetics.

The one thing Bethesda RPGs still have over nearly every other game is the modding community, which makes their games last far far longer than any DLC could ever hope for. Skyrim's base mechanics give a solid enough base that the game can be made enjoyable again and again with the use of rebalancing, new armors, spells and weapons, graphics improvements etc. etc. I'd compare the Bethesda RPG model to a coloring book: you can appreciate the black and white artwork as it is, but coloring it in will make it immensely more appealing.

One of the things I actually liked better about Oblivion than Skyrim was the AI of the NPC's. In Oblivion, they did not have a set script and I had to actually go find them. If they were hungry they went to eat and if they were bored they would go get drunk at the bar. I remember even when I used guides to go find them, they still would not be where they said they would be, they pretty much did their own thing. I think more games should use a system like that for their NPC's where they do not have a set pattern but instead respond to their own needs, desires and wander about. I like things to be unpredictable, the more unpredictable as far as I am concerned, the better.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't get Bethesda games either. I feel they are horrible at writing, which is a big part for making a good RPG. Speaking of Bethesda making RPGs, there's not much role-playing in them either. Errant Signal did a video about how poor the role-playing is in Fallout 4. And the combat is not very good, which I think is definitely the majority opinion in that regard. Even Witcher 3 has shit combat IMO, and it's better than Skyrim. I really don't understand why Skyrim got such high scores across the board when just about any reviewer/gamer would basically say how much better Skyrim would be with a combat system from some other game. Thus, if say the next Elder Scrolls comes out with some really great combat system, is the game then only like a 97 or 98 vs a 96? Because if the next game were to have great combat, that would make the game more than 1 or 2 points better.

Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean its garbage.

Yeah, it kinda does. If I hate a game/movie/song/etc, it is indeed garbage. Just because other people like it doesn't change how I feel about it. There's no quantifiable, objective way to rate a piece of art.

Also I hold firm to the belief that if you feel the need to add in a fast travel system so that your players won't get bored travelling across the game world, then your game world is either too big or doesn't have enough content in it. Perhaps both.

I completely agree on this. Every part of a game from every area and object in the world should be there for some specific reason and nothing should be filler. I enjoyed FarCry 3 but the game would've been much better as a linear experience, I couldn't care less about exploring whatsoever, just take me to the next bit of actual content. Whereas I loved exploring and roaming around in Horizon even though there was really no rewards gotten (like loot), plus the open world was actually required to house the enemies.

See now I think RPG games are better when the players make the story as they go along rather than the developer telling you a story. Back in the day, playing an RPG game meant you were making the story as you went along, not having the game do it for you. The game is only supposed to give you the setting and tools to do so and have random events along the way. RPG games started out with pencil and paper and the players getting together and creating a story as they go. Games like this allow the players to do that again rather than have someone else tell you a story and you just go along with it. When someone else is creating the story, it is like they are playing the game for you.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I agree with all the flaws, but the biggest one for me is the leveling system. I enjoy the exploration but when every cave and ruin looks the same and at the end of each one you get some level-appropriate loot, there's no surprises. Once you've seen one dungeon that's pretty much the same experience you'll get in any other

I still go back to it every now and again tho. I fell in love with that world in Morrowind and it's cool to see Argonians and Daedra and stuff

 

[sXeth]

I don't really get how Skyrim can be an "exploration" game. Particularly if dismissing its efforts at having a story.

Yeah, its relatively big. But there's literally 3 biomes and 3 dungeon types (4 if you count forts). Most of its just random assets plopped down without logic or reason.

You explore, but everything looks the same and none of it has any real purpose behind it. On the very rare quest specific dungeon you might get some vestige of a story, or coherent design.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

See now I think RPG games are better when the players make the story as they go along rather than the developer telling you a story. Back in the day, playing an RPG game meant you were making the story as you went along, not having the game do it for you. The game is only supposed to give you the setting and tools to do so and have random events along the way. RPG games started out with pencil and paper and the players getting together and creating a story as they go. Games like this allow the players to do that again rather than have someone else tell you a story and you just go along with it. When someone else is creating the story, it is like they are playing the game for you.

Writing is far more than just story, characters are key to an RPG IMO. Most of people's favorite movies/books/TV aren't their favorites because the story was so amazing, it was because the characters. You can have a basic MacGuffin plot-line as long as you have great characters ala Guardians of the Galaxy. Writing with regards to RPGs also has to do with the quality of the quests as well like Witcher 3's quests vs Skyrim. For example, here's an article [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14422] detailing how poor the Thieves Guild quest in Skyrim is. I totally understand the aspect of the player creating parts of the story like how you can totally bluff (lie) to a dragon in DnD to avoid a fight if your character has a really high bluff skill to overcome the dragon's sense motive. Of course, there needs to be lots of choices where you can side with characters or not or side with them only to later betray them. Video game RPGs can't be as open as pen and paper just due to the main storyline being fully written and it can't be adjusted like a DM can after every session based on what occurred last session. However, you can have a lot of flexibility in the core side quests that don't have many effects on the main storyline, which I felt Mass Effect did at times very well.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I keep putting it off, but one day I intend to try to kill every single person in Morrowind. Probably as a Werewolf.

Oh my god, I thought I was the only person who thought of doing this!! Wait for dark and just tear through each city as a werewolf!!

 

[CaitSeith]

Now my first game with dragons came in 1993 and that was on the SNES, an RPG named Breath of Fire so I was scratching my head wondering why dragons were so awesome in 2011.

And mine was the action game Forbidden Forest on the C64 in 1983. Your point?

I made my point, that getting excited over dragons in 2011 made no sense.

For a series where the count of dragons you fought in previous games can be done with a single hand, it sounds like a big deal.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

See now I think RPG games are better when the players make the story as they go along rather than the developer telling you a story. Back in the day, playing an RPG game meant you were making the story as you went along, not having the game do it for you. The game is only supposed to give you the setting and tools to do so and have random events along the way. RPG games started out with pencil and paper and the players getting together and creating a story as they go. Games like this allow the players to do that again rather than have someone else tell you a story and you just go along with it. When someone else is creating the story, it is like they are playing the game for you.

Writing is far more than just story, characters are key to an RPG IMO. Most of people's favorite movies/books/TV aren't their favorites because the story was so amazing, it was because the characters. You can have a basic MacGuffin plot-line as long as you have great characters ala Guardians of the Galaxy. Writing with regards to RPGs also has to do with the quality of the quests as well like Witcher 3's quests vs Skyrim. For example, here's an article [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14422] detailing how poor the Thieves Guild quest in Skyrim is. I totally understand the aspect of the player creating parts of the story like how you can totally bluff (lie) to a dragon in DnD to avoid a fight if your character has a really high bluff skill to overcome the dragon's sense motive. Of course, there needs to be lots of choices where you can side with characters or not or side with them only to later betray them. Video game RPGs can't be as open as pen and paper just due to the main storyline being fully written and it can't be adjusted like a DM can after every session based on what occurred last session. However, you can have a lot of flexibility in the core side quests that don't have many effects on the main storyline, which I felt Mass Effect did at times very well.

The characters in Skyrim are part of what makes it better than some that have cookie cutter characters. I hate the ones that force you to have a certain party makeup/ class prebuilt characters... They are awful. You can create your character everything from physical characteristics, to personality and abilities on Elder scrolls games. you choose your sign, what skills to train, what your strengths and weaknesses are. That is far better than having someone do that for you. We had a dungeons and dragons game that went on for 4 years at a friends house that we played late at night in high school. We designed our characters rather than used them premade and it was so much more fun. pencil and paper RPGs and tabletop games are where RPGs came from in the first place, that is why I would expect them to allow for custom creation rather than cookie cutter molds.

I have noticed this recent theme of comparing games to movies, and I see that as a negative rather than a positive due to movies are something you watch, playing game like a movie is like going along for the ride rather than you creating the ride for yourself. I do not want the game to play the game for me, I want to create all of these things for myself. I think a game where I walk into a library in the game and all of the books there are written by players would be much better than a prescripted one. It goes back to the roots of RPG's when players made the story as they went along, others did not do so for them, that would take away the fun.

The game adding things to encounter along the way does not mean it should tell their own story for them, the players are there to create their own story, not have it taken from them. I see them doing these things for you as removing what made the original RPG games fun in the first place.

 

[CaitSeith]

It goes back to the roots of RPG's when players made the story as they went along, others did not do so for them, that would take away the fun.

The tabletop roots of videogame RPGs is an interesting topic. These games had two main types of roles: player and gamemaster. A player was in control of only one character, and the gamemaster in control of the rest of the world. Saying that players made the story as they went along is a little oversimplified, as it depended more in the group's playstyle (some GMs prepare a story and series of scenarios in advance). You can see how this diversity in playstyle derived into the different making-your-own-fun RPGs and following-a-story RPGs.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The characters in Skyrim are part of what makes it better than some that have cookie cutter characters. I hate the ones that force you to have a certain party makeup/ class prebuilt characters... They are awful. You can create your character everything from physical characteristics, to personality and abilities on Elder scrolls games. you choose your sign, what skills to train, what your strengths and weaknesses are. That is far better than having someone do that for you. We had a dungeons and dragons game that went on for 4 years at a friends house that we played late at night in high school. We designed our characters rather than used them premade and it was so much more fun. pencil and paper RPGs and tabletop games are where RPGs came from in the first place, that is why I would expect them to allow for custom creation rather than cookie cutter molds.

I have noticed this recent theme of comparing games to movies, and I see that as a negative rather than a positive due to movies are something you watch, playing game like a movie is like going along for the ride rather than you creating the ride for yourself. I do not want the game to play the game for me, I want to create all of these things for myself. I think a game where I walk into a library in the game and all of the books there are written by players would be much better than a prescripted one. It goes back to the roots of RPG's when players made the story as they went along, others did not do so for them, that would take away the fun.

The game adding things to encounter along the way does not mean it should tell their own story for them, the players are there to create their own story, not have it taken from them. I see them doing these things for you as removing what made the original RPG games fun in the first place.

I wasn't talking about not making a character or using pre-built characters, and I didn't compare games to movies. I was talking about characters in general. Why should I care about some quest when I don't care about the NPC? Video game RPGs aren't very good RPGs because they rarely focus on actual role-playing because combat, leveling up, finding loot, etc. are so much easier to do in a video game vs actual role-playing, which takes a lot of effort. You can't even talk to dragons in Skyrim for example. Perhaps the best part of a dragon encounter in DnD is the conversation. Witcher 3 also has very little role-playing in it as well. Then video game RPGs bring to the forefront stuff that you rarely did in pen and paper RPGs because certain stuff just isn't fun like say inventory management. In DnD, you just get a bag of holding and throw everything in there instead of constantly picking up everything in a video game RPG and then being over encumbered, then having to drop the least valuable garbage. There is always that awkward moment at the start of a pen and paper RPG campaign where you have your first battle and there's loot obviously, and someone says "one of us should just write everything down" and then everyone else is looking at each other hoping for someone to volunteer to do that. A video game like a pen and paper RPG still has to have a framework to the story as that's I what the DM did. Sure, your party could just drink at the tavern all session if you so wanted. A video game is completely pre-scripted, it can't change things on the fly like a DM or in-between sessions. The way to go about story in a video game RPG is to have a pretty basic main story while having flexible side-quests that allow for much more player choice. Most of Mass Effect's best missions are the side quests, not the main story quests because you can have those stories branch out because they don't have to come back to a fixed point like the main story in a game.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The characters in Skyrim are part of what makes it better than some that have cookie cutter characters. I hate the ones that force you to have a certain party makeup/ class prebuilt characters... They are awful. You can create your character everything from physical characteristics, to personality and abilities on Elder scrolls games. you choose your sign, what skills to train, what your strengths and weaknesses are. That is far better than having someone do that for you. We had a dungeons and dragons game that went on for 4 years at a friends house that we played late at night in high school. We designed our characters rather than used them premade and it was so much more fun. pencil and paper RPGs and tabletop games are where RPGs came from in the first place, that is why I would expect them to allow for custom creation rather than cookie cutter molds.

I have noticed this recent theme of comparing games to movies, and I see that as a negative rather than a positive due to movies are something you watch, playing game like a movie is like going along for the ride rather than you creating the ride for yourself. I do not want the game to play the game for me, I want to create all of these things for myself. I think a game where I walk into a library in the game and all of the books there are written by players would be much better than a prescripted one. It goes back to the roots of RPG's when players made the story as they went along, others did not do so for them, that would take away the fun.

The game adding things to encounter along the way does not mean it should tell their own story for them, the players are there to create their own story, not have it taken from them. I see them doing these things for you as removing what made the original RPG games fun in the first place.

I wasn't talking about not making a character or using pre-built characters, and I didn't compare games to movies. I was talking about characters in general. Why should I care about some quest when I don't care about the NPC? Video game RPGs aren't very good RPGs because they rarely focus on actual role-playing because combat, leveling up, finding loot, etc. are so much easier to do in a video game vs actual role-playing, which takes a lot of effort. You can't even talk to dragons in Skyrim for example. Perhaps the best part of a dragon encounter in DnD is the conversation. Witcher 3 also has very little role-playing in it as well. Then video game RPGs bring to the forefront stuff that you rarely did in pen and paper RPGs because certain stuff just isn't fun like say inventory management. In DnD, you just get a bag of holding and throw everything in there instead of constantly picking up everything in a video game RPG and then being over encumbered, then having to drop the least valuable garbage. There is always that awkward moment at the start of a pen and paper RPG campaign where you have your first battle and there's loot obviously, and someone says "one of us should just write everything down" and then everyone else is looking at each other hoping for someone to volunteer to do that. A video game like a pen and paper RPG still has to have a framework to the story as that's I what the DM did. Sure, your party could just drink at the tavern all session if you so wanted. A video game is completely pre-scripted, it can't change things on the fly like a DM or in-between sessions. The way to go about story in a video game RPG is to have a pretty basic main story while having flexible side-quests that allow for much more player choice. Most of Mass Effect's best missions are the side quests, not the main story quests because you can have those stories branch out because they don't have to come back to a fixed point like the main story in a game.

What?
You sell stuff and put it in your house, not let yourself become over encumbered. You make choices that change the story line and determine what you do. Why would I care about a developer created character more than I would one I created? I honestly think developer created stories are lame compared to player created stories.

 

[wings012]

Elder Scrolls(or Bethesda RPGs with Fallout now) are just massive playgrounds. If you are looking for a more tailor made quality experience - look elsewhere.

It's more for people who like to muck about at their leisure and slowly pick apart something huge. Mods also allow you to tailor the experience to your own preferences. And it's kinda liberating just jumping into a game - not having to walk down some predetermined corridor and just fuck off somewhere to punch a mudcrab. Then climb a mountain.

 

[Mad World]

Gotta say....this game is kind of garbage. I mean mostly garbage.

You make some interesting points; however; you're wrong to say that it's garbage. You can have that opinion, but don't label it as absolute fact. I liked the game a lot. Personally, though, I felt that the AI could have used an upgrade. It didn't necessarily lack in Oblivion, but why not upgrade the "Radiant" AI? Oh, right... because graphics are all that matter to the majority these days. In some ways, it seems as though the AI actually downgraded from Oblivion. Do NPCs eat in Skyrim? They seemed to in oblivion. Can they pick up weapons? They could in Oblivion. Also, when those assassins/whatever come after you for whatever reason, why do guard do nothing or even run away? Ruins immersion.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Now my first game with dragons came in 1993 and that was on the SNES, an RPG named Breath of Fire so I was scratching my head wondering why dragons were so awesome in 2011.

And mine was the action game Forbidden Forest on the C64 in 1983. Your point?

I made my point, that getting excited over dragons in 2011 made no sense.

For a series where the count of dragons you fought in previous games can be done with a single hand, it sounds like a big deal.

Why? It's like getting excited over driving a car in Final Fantasy. It may be a first but it's just not a big deal when you have been doing it in other franchises for years.

 

[Mad World]

A game should *SNIP*

I'm telling you why other people like it. Why you don't is utterly irrelevant.

In his defence, the context by which you referenced mods implied that they negate any negative points which he provided.