King of the Sandbox said:
irishda said:
King of the Sandbox said:
...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.
See there it is again. Your fanboyism is bleeding through. It's not that people don't like it, it's just that they "don't get it" or "they don't understand". You're taking the exact same dismissive attitude that the people you're calling haters have.
Sorry, but I'm not succumbing to your cyclical argument. You wanted things, I gave you things. Itemized even.
You pretty much cancel out your own idea on the issue of avatar=fanboyness, evidenced further by the fact that you don't mention it here, or respond to my calling out of your own admission that it is a flawed practice in your previous post.
You've now resorted to baseless name calling, as I've given plenty of criticism to Skyrim as well, yet you keep using 'fanboy' in the derogatory manner.
Good day, sir. Enjoy your contrarianism.
Well you dismissed my whole argument about what image means in the world, even on the internet, pointing out that I said "whether or not it should". The thing is, even if it shouldn't matter(as you believe, and I'd be entirely willing to argue with you about how it should matter), that's how it IS with the world. That's why there's such sayings as "picture is worth a thousand words" or "dress for the job you want not the job you have". Even if it's flawed, which is your belief not mine, this is how it is. You have to accept that fact whether or not you believe that's how it should be.
As for your list, that in itself is a contradiction. Your ONE criticism to Skyrim was the agreement that it didn't bring anything new to the table that Oblivion didn't have, then you gave me a list which proclaimed all the new things skyrim did.
1: skyrim is more detailed, but I don't think we can say it's more immersive just because it's more detailed. It seems like there's just as much to do in oblivion and fallout 3 as there is to do in skyrim.
2: emotionally rewarding side quests. Emotion is incredibly subjective and very hard to do well. Since there's a lot of complaint on how hollow and wooden the other characters and quest-givers are, I doubt the majority of people feel that the quests are emotionally rewarding.
3 and 8: Again, the "feel" part means it's subjective. While you might feel like a mage or a werewolf, other people might not. And since a lot of people say the combat feels behind or outdated, it sounds like the majority opinion is that many don't really feel like a powerful mage. Don't know how people feel about the werewolf part.
5: Local flavor for items is more of a standard that's expected, like someone who can read. An RPG is supposed to have items that reflect the culture behind them. It's one of those things that should be derided if it's not there, but not really celebrated if it is.
6: These involve putting a lot of time into the game. If you have that time, then yes, it's awesome for those that can. But for those that don't have the time for this aspect of the game, it's irrelevant. So it's an improvement for those that have, not really a point against or for for those that don't.
7: I'm not sure how weather can be anything but part of the environment. Unless Oblivion had no weather, in which case I guess this ranks under improvement.
4 and 9: improvements I see no problem with, even Yahtzee pointed out 9.
Still, the bulk of your list is related to the environment. Which means that apparently what Oblivion was missing was more detail in the environment, and people's complaints about that game stem beyond just "the environment wasn't very detailed."
als of gaming history.
