Will Skyrim be remembered?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have to agree with this. Skyrim is amazing fun for me, but I just see it as a natural progression from Morrowind and Oblivion (sort of). Games that are remembered don't just have amazing stories and interesting characters. They are genre-changing games. They set standards. Skyrim did not do that. It took the excellent and popular elder scrolls formula, and made it better. Skyward Sword is better than Ocarina of Time (imho), but OoT is still going to be remembered much farther down the line because it set the tone, scope, mechanics, and level of fun for the Legend of Zelda series as a 3D franchise. I think Morrowind did this moreso than Skyrim. I also think that FFVII did this for Final Fantasy games even though I liked VIII, X, and XII (Balthier FTW) better. Games are considered classics because other games take after them in mechanics, story, setting, tone, and scope. There are plenty of great games that follow GTA3's model of doing things, and do it better, (Like Saints Row), but GTA3 is still considered the classic game. So many more examples, but I think I've made my point.Heaven said:
This. Everytime RPGs are talked about here on the Escapist there's at least 12 people who go on about Morrowind and 10 other people who go on about Oblivion, plus 20 other people who go on about both of them. Skyrim will be remembered as an awesome game for a long time and as Phlakes said I'll probably still be playing it.Phlakes said:
for skyrim, its not the characters, the main character is the world. and i've had oblivion for years and STILL play it here and there and LOVE it still. skyrim will be no different
Firstly, I'm glad that you feel this is a more complete roleplaying experience, more power to you for it. But that's a matter of opinion. And I just cannot accept that this is the game that does that to people specifically because, as you admitted, it doesn't do anything differently. It added dragons. It just blows my mind that this was the missing piece that was keeping people from calling Oblivion the game of the year (none of the major publications awarded oblivion 2006's GOTY, mostly losing to either Gears of War or Zelda: TP). This is a good game, and I can give it that, because it is fun and there is a lot to do in this game. But for us to slap labels on it like "instant classic that'll be remembered forever" or "Game of the Year right now" is ludicrous for something that didn't do anything particularly new or particularly well. To me it doesn't have any right to dominate OoT, Portal, or KOTOR.King of the Sandbox said:
Secondly, your avatar tells people that you've got a very personal connection to Skyrim (I know they used that logo for Morrowind too but that particular scheme is skyrim's). And the fact that you had it before Skyrim was released is even worse because now that means that you had this very personal tie to this game before it was even playable. Without even playing the game, you were ready to say, "this is going to be awesome." And when someone becomes so dependent on something succeeding like that, their very ego gets entangled with it. But the ego does everything to protect itself in everyone, including putting flaws in your blind spot. So in essence, your avatar, right off the bat it tells people that you are such a huge fan of this game that you might not be able to step back and look at this with an objective eye. You've shown you can when you said that this game isn't very innovative. But then you still take two steps back when you say things in your original post like "All these awesome reviews (professional opinions) means this game will be remembered (speculation). That's not bragging that's a fact."
And finally, if this magazine touts Mass Effect 3 or something else, are you really not gonna call bullshit and fight for Skyrim?
TL;DR: You agreed that it's not innovative, just new. So why should it be put over something that DID take a chance with something new?
And, if you're gonna present yourself as a fanboy, people are gonna brush your opinions aside because they'll think you're too wrapped up in something to look at it rationally.
If by new, you mean the one that currently has it's best pieces put together the correct way, well enough to impress me despite not being vastly different from it's predecessors, yet the pinnacle of what they were trying to achieve? Then yes, It's 'new'. Call me crazy, but that seems more of a merit than a flaw to me.irishda said:
And people that insist, nay, defend, assigning me an arbitrary stance or opinion or level of dedication based on an image, is so fallible, arguing it only lends credence to it, and that's not my idea of something worthwhile. Long story short, it's a picture, not a goddamn banner. And it's a pretty weak defense point for any argument.
EDIT: Oh, and what about ME3? I'll be far too busy playing Skyrim to worry about raining on anyone else's parade the way the contrarians have tried to rain on ours. Not that I'd want to, because I'm not a jerk and don't try to tell people their opinions are out and out wrong like it's some sort of fervent duty. (Not talking about you in particular, so relax those butt-cheeks.)
Hey! I am still preferring Warcraft III over new attempts such as Battleforge... plus, WC3 is comparably tiny to modern games, and minus the movies it can be basically carried around on a USB stick. I still have it installed on every machine I own, it's become my ersatz chess, and there are still tons of people playing it.SidheKnight said:
On topic: I believe yes, Skyrim is an instant classic. People who didn't play games much went bonkers over Oblivion, and to me Oblivion looked pretty ugly and felt raw... if the very same people get their hands on Skyrim, they'll lose their jobs and destroy their relationships.
Plus, me and other ageing gamers seem to like Skyrim. I only started wielding the console to fix a fistful of bugged-out quests, and after finishing the game for the first time and going at it a bit differently in my second plough-through, I am still finding lots of new stuff. After an average 100 hours of gameplay so far, I would say I have seen about 80+ hours of scripted material, so there should easily still be some 300+ hours of material out there. With so much crap games, annoying franchises, micro transactions and other rip-offs making marketing folks seem like devil worshippers to the average consumer, playing Skyrim is therapeutic. You're invited to do the quests, slay the big evil dragon, beat the game... but you can just as well just walk/run/swim/ride around, enjoying the scenery while thinning out the wildlife for pelts and eyes and claws. It's a remarkable title with a number of (technical and other) flaws, but Skyrim is the first title in the franchise that is absolutely enjoyable to me, and I will be looking forward to whatever they will bring out next. They made great improvements to their engines, a lot of things that seemed raw back in their interpretation of Fallout (3 and New Vegas) are now more polished and functional, and even though I dislike the gamepad-centric controls, I consider Skyrim to be instant GOTY material. Sure, there are other great games that came out this year, but let's be honest, some of them offer, what, maybe five hours of playtime until you reach the end credits. Five hours in Skyrim will let you wield two swords without cutting your legs off. It's quite a beast of a game, a Tardis full of content and an adventure you can pretty much play and lay out as you like. I really intended to hate Skyrim as much as I hated Dragon Age II, but I can't. Skyrim is a splendid effort, a great game and an instant classic with millions of players all having their own, individual and quite customized experience. There was little marketing gibberish upfront, and the game just plain delivers... and then some.
If I weren't completely in the dark concerning your sexual orientation, gender, and general level of hygiene... I'd hug you.Headdrivehardscrew said:
Then I'd offer you some of my sweetroll and tell you about the time I took an arrow in the knee.
If it really manages to bring the japanese RPG folks back on track, moving resources and attention away from Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy, it could be the inspiring spark to ignite a new wave of excellent Japcrap.King of the Sandbox said:
Secret of Mana, MOTHER, Chrono Trigger and all the others - you're not forgotten!
I think the latter. I bought Skyrim with high hopes, but after the main quest line, I play it less and less. Maybe I just have to get back into it or something.
Well, Famitsu did give Skyrim it's first perfect score for an western game, so who knows? ^_^Headdrivehardscrew said:
But what pieces did they change and then put together the correct way? I didn't experience very much difference between Oblivion and Skyrim as a game, so why is skyrim so much better? I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet, and if people can't offer an answer in quantifiable terms then it can't set a standard or precedent for future RPGs. And if it can't set a standard then it hasn't done anything all that special. It's not a flaw in the sense of whether or not it's a good game but it's a point against it if you're trying to fit it into the pantheons of the great games.King of the Sandbox said:
And yea, you will be assigned an stance or opinion based on an image. But it's not arbitrary. Image is everything in this world regardless of whether or not it should be. Image tells you about something right off the bat because that person has chosen that image so that they can say something to the world without even opening their mouths. And your picture, even though it's just a picture, is the image for this forum. That's why it's called an avatar for god sake's, it's your embodiment on here. And your embodiment says "I think Skyrim is the king". That's fine, that's your opinion. But don't be so surprised if people don't take your opinion seriously, because sports analysts might lose some credibility if they're sitting their giving an analysis with a "I Love the Yankees" t-shirt on.
I rather doubt it, Skyrim does almost nothing new compared to Morrowind. Only thing compared to Morrowind it has is better graphics.
Sure it might have infinite dragons or infinite kill bandit boss quests, but actual good and interesting quests are quite finite. Indeed actually fairly rare.
There are also no memorable nor interesting characters in the game. Well perhaps Parth.
Sure it might have infinite dragons or infinite kill bandit boss quests, but actual good and interesting quests are quite finite. Indeed actually fairly rare.
There are also no memorable nor interesting characters in the game. Well perhaps Parth.
In like 20 years I don't think Skyrim will be remembered individually as much as The Elder Scrolls games as a whole will be remembered.
Like even right now, Halo is remembered for what it is as a series and only the close fans of the game will point out the quality of the games individually. And like Halo, the Elder Scrolls series has never really had a game that wasn't good (in my opinion) so rather than thinking how great Skyrim was, they'll probably think how great the Elder Scrolls games were/are.
Like even right now, Halo is remembered for what it is as a series and only the close fans of the game will point out the quality of the games individually. And like Halo, the Elder Scrolls series has never really had a game that wasn't good (in my opinion) so rather than thinking how great Skyrim was, they'll probably think how great the Elder Scrolls games were/are.
I contend that, in twenty years, whatever the top-rated game on Kongregate is right nowwill be hailed as the pinnacle of game design thrughout all of human history. That game will be the most remembered and referenced game of our time in twenty years.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
1. The world. Much more detailed, much more immersive.irishda said:
2. Even minor character side-quests can be emotionally rewarding (Such as the poor gentleman in the town at the base of the 7000 Steps).
3.The tactile satisfaction of wielding magic, that succeeds in actually making me feel like a mage, and not someone who clicks a button for fire balls.
4. The differing and varied terrains. It's not all orange haze, or idyllic forest/grassland or snow-blown mountains. It's hot springs and tundra and mountains and forests and icy seas and everything except a desert.
5. The weapons/armor/item designs carry much more local (to Skyrim) flavor.
6. If I want to roleplay a blacksmith, I can. If I want to play a merchant, I can. No matter what type of character I want to roleplay, I can still enjoy the game completely.
7. The weather effects are as much a part of the environment as the trees and rocks.
8. Being a werewolf actually feels like being a werewolf, and not a palette swap with
slightly different stats.
9. NPC's don't give you the 1000 yard stare anymore.
...I can keep going, but my point is this... just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. I think most people's problem is, like Yahtzee said, that developers and publishers have been pushing the quick, one play-through and you're done, on rails, action extravaganza game to be the norm. So when a game that's more of an epic DM's toolbox like Skyrim comes along, they don't know what to do with themselves and blame the game in frustration.
I'm just gonna leave that at that. Seeing as how it's the first thing you mention when talking about it.