![])rStrangelove](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/125/125479.jpg?1621029148){kind=avatar}
Yes, but not for the right reasons imo:retyopy said:
- dragons flying backwards
- let childs be killed via mods because its realistic
- dragons killed too easy whereas big animals stomp you into the ground
Will Skyrim be remembered?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- dragons flying backwards
- let childs be killed via mods because its realistic
- dragons killed too easy whereas big animals stomp you into the ground
I know that, I don't find him to be the pinnacle force pushing for change, I find someone like Total Biscuit to be more in that category, Moviebob and the Extra Credits crew.King of the Sandbox said:
Thats a very, very rare case, since the people publishing your review would be pushing you to give out the review before the game is out, sine its free publicity, which is more money.
The whole reviewing scene, as a whole, is terrible. And once again, I blame hype. Get enough people hyped for what is shit and people will still defend that shit with their lives. It happens all the damn time, every time a triple A title is released. You can't really argue this, I was almost punched for saying that I didn't like Skyrim. Its just consumerism, its like the two leading brands of X thing fighting off, one side will completely hate the other but their the same thing.
Back to 'Will Skyrim be Remembered?' I don't think it will be remembered and teh best, but as it was good for its time, since their just going to make 30 more until the series is milked free.
Oooook. I'd never punch someone for not liking Skyrim, that's dumb.Aprilgold said:
The thing is though, is that if it's a AAA title... it kind of goes without saying that it has fans. That seems a hefty burdon to place solely at Skyrim's feet alone.
And what about Yahtzee? His review wasn't out until two weeks after release and he's gushing about it, bugs and all. In that case, he's a pretty influential minority.
I'll admit that I'm not that far in the game yet (i think I'm only 50-60 hours in), so I'm apparently not be at the point where those enemies show up yet, but the game SHOULD have introduced such combat to me earlier then. Skyrim is considered to be a ~250 hour game, but if it's only a handful of enemies that challenge you in that way, then that leaves the question about what to do with the remaining 249 hours.King of the Sandbox said:
Even the dragons i fought so far (which are considered to be some of the games big baddies) I've defeated by emptying all my mana into them, and then putting a wall between me and them until it regenerated.
Sure there probably exists a lot of clever tactics you CAN use in Skyrim, but if you don't have to in the first place 99% of the time, then why bother?
Exploration. Trading. Reading lore. Skill-improvement. Fireballing goats/people/trolls off of cliffs. Etc. (too much to list here.)Athinira said:
Yeah, that's generally how it goes. Plus or minus a few arrows and shouts. Just wait until you have to fight on on the slim precipice of a mountain ledge, nearly a mile off the ground.
Or two at once. Or an elder dragon. Or a named dragon.
Uhm... role-playing? People remember that, right? I'm not the only one... right?
Then i consider it ironic that Baldur's Gate allows me to do all the things you just mentioned (trade, explore lore, level up or just go nuts), roleplay and at the SAME time give me interesting combat in more than 1% of the enemy encounters in the game.King of the Sandbox said:
Yes there is a lot to do in Skyrim beyond combat, but combat is still a big part of the game, and they at least SHOULD have attempted to make it more interesting.
I just don't feel that there is any challenge to the combat whatsoever (and by challenge I'm not saying that i never die, I'm saying that you can get by with the same routine over and over and over, and even in cases where you die you can just change the routine slightly and get it on the second try), so the game has to hold up on the other elements alone, and while those elements are still strong, you can't call a game benchmark material when you have to start putting up excuses for the combat and instead advice me to go do something else (like you just did). You can't just tell me to go ignore the combat because it sucks. It's still a part of the game.
The great thing about Skyrim is that it's more than the sum of it's part, which is what makes it a good game. It's just a shame that it's individual parts aren't that great by themselves.
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize you specifically meant what else could you do in combat. For that, I direct you to my earlier issue with the Forsworn mage. Y'know, changing up your style, as Skyrim completely allows for it. If you can't see a reason to go beyond what works for you, tried and true, then there's really nothing I can tell you. You have to possess at least an inkling of inspiration yourself. Skyrim gives you all the tools, but no one can force you to use more than one of them, other than yourself and your imagination.Athinira said:
If you're saying that being able to do what you do makes Skyrim faulty, I'd point out that in BG2, once I got my character outfitted pretty well, I could just wail on everything with my beefiest attacks, fall back on healing potions, and rinse/repeat ad nauseum, much like you describe in Skyrim. Luckily, I took my own advice up there and learned to vary it up myself. I couldn't very well blame the game for allowing me to munchkin my way through it, that was my decision, until I decided to change it up and add my own spice.
Oh, I think the one lasting thing about Skyrim that will set it apart is the idea of the Dragonborn him/herself, and their innovative (in an action-y rpg) shouts. This helps give Skyrim an identity all its own. And of course, like its predecessors it has it's own little idioms that will make their way into the collective gaming conscience... until they take an arrow in the knee, of course.Tin Man said:
But again that brings up the point of why bothering in the first place. Any game-related action you take as a player is going to lose a lot of weight if you're doing it just for the sake of it rather than because you NEED to do it. To quote Yahtzee: "You CAN, but why would you want to"?King of the Sandbox said:
You CAN make the combat into something that resembles second-rate rocket science, but there is no benefit from it 99% of the time, so why bother. It's like attempting to give one the self-satisfaction of being clever by outsmarting an enemy, only to realize that the enemy is basically mentally retarded, and that you could have outsmarted it with merely 10% of the effort you just wasted, which makes you the dumb one.
You see, the excuse that "no one can force you to use more than one of them" doesn't hold up, because this is what a game should do. It SHOULD force you to be creative, because if it doesn't then there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge, then the games overall quality is going to be lower. Period.
And by 'creative', i don't mean that the game should force you to use a clever combination of everything (melee, magic) etc. because forcing players to mix up every skill in the game definitely isn't a great idea. I mean that each individual element should have more tactical options AND requirements. Skyrim needs less monsters overall, but it also needs more difficult encounters and more ways of dealing with them that doesn't involve just sticking to the same hack-and-slash or Fireball-their-face option.
...which I'm going to point out is blatantly false.
Baldur's Gate 2 has a lot of enemies where you, if you want to take the hack and slash approach even with the best gear in the game, still NEED to do things to make them viable. Some mages had spells that made them immune to magical weapons along with spells that could kill you instantly (and time stop, and many other things), so you needed to break down their defenses and more often than not the Cleric spell Death Ward to make sure you didn't get gibbed, and I'm sure i don't need to remind you of the ridiculous amount of mages that was present in Baldur's Gate 2. There is a reason that the most required spell in Baldur's Gate 2 is considered 'Breach'.
Dragons typically needed a fear-counter, unless you wanted your characters to run around completely helpless, and against Vampires you either needed a Paladin or some other protection against level draining, because even if you killed them you would be severely hampered afterwards. There was constantly encounters with enemy mages and clerics who would mind-control your party. Then you have Mind Flayers doing the same thing along with hold spells, beholders who could dish out high amounts of ranged damage (which got rather difficult when they were in numbers) and even Imprison your characters, and I'd like to see you deal with Kangaxx the Lich by just whacking him to death. And that's just the individual monsters. Then there are the special encounters which consist of a wide variety of enemies with different abilities.
These are just a few of the many examples of encounters in Baldur's Gate 2 that you couldn't hack and slash your way through with healing potions (and definitely not if playing on any of the harder difficulties). In general, it was only most (not all) of the sidequests to the main story that had a low tactics requirement, and even then you had to be a reasonably high level party to do it (getting the Celestial Fury late in the game is a breeze, while defeating the army in the guarded compound when you just emerged from Irenicus Dungeon is an entirely different thing). In fact, i haven't read a single strategy guide in Baldur's Gate that tells you to just go whack on most of the enemies until they drop. Every single of the harder monsters had a section detailing how to deal with them, specific weaknesses they had etc. If you could just go up and whack them to death, even with the best gear in the game, this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
i see it as the new gta 3 for rpg's, a game that will be held up as something to strive for or work from, not a bad thing in a lot of ways.
When Arena came out, people were asking: "Will Arena be remembered?"
It wasn't. The last TES game anyone talks about is Daggerfall, though I'd hardly say that qualifies it as "remembered". No one even discusses Redguard anymore, which was one of the best TES games.
It wasn't. The last TES game anyone talks about is Daggerfall, though I'd hardly say that qualifies it as "remembered". No one even discusses Redguard anymore, which was one of the best TES games.
/salutesTin Man said:Good old King of the Sandbox, ever vigilant member of the Skyrim Defence League =p.King of the Sandbox said:
I have to concede, you do make a good point with the Dragonborn and the shouts thing, that does give it something of a unique flavour. It's about time one of the ES games came out with something unique
Indeed. Can't let my fan cred be slackin', yo. Plus, I honestly feel this game deserves it.
Trust me, I got through a lot of the stuff in BG2 just by smashing it, then, if that didn't work, splashing it with a spell or such that would make smashing work, then proceeding directly to the smashing of said it.Athinira said:
I honestly and truly do feel bad for fellow RPG fans like yourself, who seem determined to limit themselves in such a freeing game, though.
And since I really don't think we're going to change each others minds here, since we both seem very adamant about our positions, we'll call it a draw. Fair enough?
