Will Skyrim be remembered?

[Athinira]

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.

Bolded the important part. You actually HAD to do something to make the smashing tactic work.

I also got through a lot of content in BG2 by smashing it, but i typically had to at least pre-buff, prepare and DO something to make it work.

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.

I'm not limiting myself. The GAME is limiting me.

Listen, RPG fan or not, a game needs to challenge, else most people will find that part of the system stagnating. I don't limit myself because i want to. I limit myself because there is no reason to expand.

If the game fails to give me a reason to expand, you can't just say it's my fault for not wanting to. It's a lack in the game, not me. I don't control the fact that doing something for its own sake isn't satisfying to me (and, as i would like to point out, isn't satisfying to a great many people).

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?

I'm not arguing with you to try to change your mind about Skyrim being a great game. I'm trying to make you see that there is much more room for improvement than you would like to admit, which is why i don't consider the game benchmark material.

I'm much like Yahtzee, in that i hate seeing wasted potential, and what pains me is that Skyrim could have been so much more. Just because it's good, doesn't mean it can't stride to be perfect (or at the very least better), and in my opinion, instead of sitting here telling me that the combat system is good, you should go tell the developers that you want the combat system to be BETTER in Skyrim 2 (or whatever the hell the next game in the series is going to be called).

And this is why i diametrically oppose calling it benchmark material, because it didn't raise the bar in many aspects of it's gameplay when it should have. Skyrim allows for a lot of playstyles, yeah, but most of them lack any real depth, which is my problem with the game. The best analogy i can find is that the combat system reminds me of Spore from EA: A vast game that takes you through MANY stages of how life began, but at the end of the day the gameplay in each stage lacked depth and was shallow. Fortunately, combat isn't all what Skyrim is about, which is what makes it good, but that particular part is still shallow.

We should always strive to improve upon what isn't perfect, especially when it's a thousand miles from perfect. And the fact is that if Skyrim had an engaging and intense combat system where thinking replaced backpedaling, it could be 10 times as addictive as it is now. Imagine that for a minute, will you? The game you already love being even more engaging. I'm avtually afraid you might quit your job or school if that was the case! )

 

[Casual Shinji]

It would be if the quests had some actual variety to them in what to do and how to handle it, but as it stands it will simply be remembered as a competent open-world dungeon crawler.

Nothing more.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

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.

Bolded the important part. You actually HAD to do something to make the smashing tactic work.

I also got through a lot of content in BG2 by smashing it, but i typically had to at least pre-buff, prepare and DO something to make it work.

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.

I'm not limiting myself. The GAME is limiting me.

Listen, RPG fan or not, a game needs to challenge, else most people will find that part of the system stagnating. I don't limit myself because i want to. I limit myself because there is no reason to expand.

If the game fails to give me a reason to expand, you can't just say it's my fault for not wanting to. It's a lack in the game, not me. I don't control the fact that doing something for its own sake isn't satisfying to me (and, as i would like to point out, isn't satisfying to a great many people).

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?

I'm not arguing with you to try to change your mind about Skyrim being a great game. I'm trying to make you see that there is much more room for improvement than you would like to admit, which is why i don't consider the game benchmark material.

I'm much like Yahtzee, in that i hate seeing wasted potential, and what pains me is that Skyrim could have been so much more. Just because it's good, doesn't mean it can't stride to be perfect (or at the very least better), and in my opinion, instead of sitting here telling me that the combat system is good, you should go tell the developers that you want the combat system to be BETTER in Skyrim 2 (or whatever the hell the next game in the series is going to be called).

And this is why i diametrically oppose calling it benchmark material, because it didn't raise the bar in many aspects of it's gameplay when it should have. Skyrim allows for a lot of playstyles, yeah, but most of them lack any real depth, which is my problem with the game. The best analogy i can find is that the combat system reminds me of Spore from EA: A vast game that takes you through MANY stages of how life began, but at the end of the day the gameplay in each stage lacked depth and was shallow. Fortunately, combat isn't all what Skyrim is about, which is what makes it good, but that particular part is still shallow.

We should always strive to improve upon what isn't perfect, especially when it's a thousand miles from perfect. And the fact is that if Skyrim had an engaging and intense combat system where thinking replaced backpedaling, it could be 10 times as addictive as it is now. Imagine that for a minute, will you? The game you already love being even more engaging. I'm avtually afraid you might quit your job or school if that was the case! )

I'll conceide to the last point, that improvements could be made, but hell, I could say that about anything.

Look, where we really disagree here is the "using what the game gives you" point. You say you have no need to, because the game doesn't make you. Well, good, I say. I don't want it to MAKE me do anything. It's counter to what I love about the game. That's something more for Uncharted or Gears of War. In such a versatile and freeing game as Skyrim, however, sometimes it's fun to try out new tactics. Here, here's an example...

>A mammoth, chasing me with a bloodlust because I just killed what I suspect was its mate.
>I run like hell, because, y'know, mammoth.
>I reach a cliff while backpedalling and hurling arrows.
>I remember Tremors.
>I place a fire rune on the edge in front of me, wait until the beast charges, then quickly dash out of the way.
>Elephant goes plop at the bottom of the ravine.
>Much fun and joy is had by changing my tactics and giggling at crumpled fuzzy elephant body.

See what I'm getting at? Instead of crunching numbers and hit point to DPS ratio and all that stuff, I had an adventure, on the fly, role-playing.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[thahat]

I think it stands a good chance of being remembered. Heck, I'd almost guarantee it. Especially if BethSoft's next game sorta sucks; Skyrim will be remembered as a high water mark for them, alongside Morrowind for those old enough to have experienced it when it came out. It's the culmination of their plan for the series - aside from the various gameplay/graphical imperfections and bugs, Skyrim is unique in that it fulfills its entire design. There are no loose ends, no obviously weak sections. There's nothing where you can really say "This feature is missing." And that is what it will be remembered as - a game that got it right.

well, nothing missing that the modding community cant add or fix. if they finally get the modding tools, as is wit hall beth games. and skyrim needs quite a lot of things.
but with some modding pollish, a metric fuckton of bugfixes, and some dedication, its going to be a titan to remember.

 

[xdiesp]

These games fill a vacant niche. Unless Red Dead Redemption doesn't go fantasy, they will be the only brand of "free roaming adventure, with less emphasis on stats than a mmorpuger".

 

[Gatx]

Well there's already a few memes spawned from the game so it might have some kind of lasting cultural impact.

 

[CodeOrange]

Skyrim will be remembered as a game that could have been so much better. It's going to suffer the same fate as Oblivion, aging horribly with a bitter aftertaste of despondency and obstination. It'll happen, trust me.

On the bright side, at least we know that the TES games cannot possibly get any simpler, so next time we can expect a game that's actually an RPG. If Bethesda doesn't fail miserably (quality-wise, not popularity and economical wise) on their next TES installment like they did on their last two major projects, then that would the game that would be remembered as a true classic.

Or better yet, just outsource the next game to a competent development team. Obsidian Entertainment would be a good place to start.

 

[Athinira]

>A mammoth, chasing me with a bloodlust because I just killed what I suspect was its mate.
>I run like hell, because, y'know, mammoth.
>I reach a cliff while backpedalling and hurling arrows.
>I remember Tremors.
>I place a fire rune on the edge in front of me, wait until the beast charges, then quickly dash out of the way.
>Elephant goes plop at the bottom of the ravine.
>Much fun and joy is had by changing my tactics and giggling at crumpled fuzzy elephant body.

See what I'm getting at? Instead of crunching numbers and hit point to DPS ratio and all that stuff, I had an adventure, on the fly, role-playing.

And what I'm trying to get at here is that you might as well just have shot fire at it and it would be dead.

Lets imagine something else for a minute: That your fire spell is too weak to actually kill the Mammoth, because well, y'know, a Mammoth is a big enemy that doesn't easily die. Now you actually HAVE to use some of the tactics you just described yourself, and all it took was to make the enemy too strong to be defeated with your simplest attack. See the difference?

The point I'm making is that all that creative thinking you just used yourself should be REWARDING, in the sense that it should be more effective if you can manage to pull it off. Currently it just happens to be less effective because shooting fire is simply too easy. When against a difficult foe, simply shooting fire should be your last resort. It should be your last ditch effort to survive a difficult encounter if everything else fails, not your 'go-to' method if you just can't be bothered with the rest. That's what gives the combat depth and meaning., that you sometimes are FORCED to think under pressure, rather than being free to choose it at all times. It adds tension, and tension equals excitement.

Sure, you should be able to use fire on the weaker enemies and get by, else getting through the game would take 750 hours instead of 250. But the game SHOULD put up some enemies that you have to get more creative defeating. This creates interest.

 

[Magnicon]

Skyrim will be remembered as a game that could have been so much better. It's going to suffer the same fate as Oblivion, aging horribly with a bitter aftertaste of despondency and obstination. It'll happen, trust me.

Or better yet, just outsource the next game to a competent development team. Obsidian Entertainment would be a good place to start.

This a million times.

I fully hated Morrowind and Oblivion. I think Skyrim is a "good" game.(ive put in roughly 120 hours) Thats it. Just good. It isn't amazing, and it sure as hell isn't innovative or groundbreaking. Its watered down and streamlined enough to make it more accessible to more people. To increase sales.

There is nothing new of value in Skyrim. They added nothing new to the genre or games in general. (dragons are just another mob you end up one shotting, get a grip)

"Without a doubt, this has been our most ambitious project ever," said director Todd Howard. "

If this is the case, Skyrim should be considered a massive failure. Almost every feature in Skyrim is lacking something. Almost as if they purposefully didn't flesh them out. (my moneys on DLC)

It saddens me to see people thinking that Skyrim is "innovative" or "groundbreaking". I can only assume that they are either simply ignorant of whats available, or a simple minded fanboy.

All it does is reinforce another developers lackluster effort.

 

[Tallim]

I don't know. It is good but it isn't amazing. It's not even technically a very good game and little about it is very memorable. It will probably have a largish hardcore following long after it has gone by but I don't think it will be remembered much by the larger game playing population.

 

[Alma Mare]

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)

Yes he can. Let's wait after the next wave of sequels/releases and take a shot everytime you read something along the lines of "like skyrim but with better combat". Not "Like Dragon Age..." or "Not like Two Worlds 2..."

"There is nothing new of value in Skyrim. They added nothing new to the genre or games in general. (dragons are just another mob you end up one shotting, get a grip)"

Then do kindly point me to a game that does what Skyrim does. If possible, one that does it better. Because I've been searching since Oblivion and never found it.

 

[GeorgW]

I definitely think so. For starters, there will probably still be people playing it 10 years from now. The reason games have been remembered in the past is that there weren't as many good ones as now, so any game these days will have a lot of competition. But I still think Skyrim will stand the test of time, it's very unique and has a legendary history, plus it's a genuinely wonderful game. I think so far it'll stand out in TES, as it is the best selling and most well received of the series. However, Oblivion was a launch game for one of the biggest consoles, so that may overshadow Skyrim in the end.

 

[beniki]

Put it this way... even Yahtzee has a woody for this game. I haven't even played the damn thing yet, and I can say it will have a long lasting legacy. Seriously, I can't think of a modern game that is so universally loved, from pre-production all the way to release and after.

The internet is gushing quite obscenely over this game.

Edit: Ah wait... Minecraft. Damn, this has been a good year for games!

If by 'long lasting' you mean the few years it'll take them to build the next ES game on the next gen, which will then be 'the greatest game ever'. Skyrim doesn't have a legacy to leave mate. I'm not saying it isn't loved and really popular pretty much universally, but it hasn't changed anything. It isn't pushing a boundary, it isn't revolutionising a genre(F:NV DID revolutionise itself and genuinely make a huge innovation with the Hardcore mode, and noone gives two shits about that now).

Skyrim is a great ES game for those that like ES games, but it's doing nothing new, just a load of things really well polished. That's not the same as having a legacy.

So then the next game will be Skyrim's legacy

As you say, it's universally loved, but I'm afraid you're wrong in your last argument. It isn't just a great game for Elder Scrolls fans. It's a great game for everybody.

In other words, the formula is as close to RPG perfection as it's ever been, and there are very, very few people saying otherwise. That'll be it's long lasting impact... people copying the formula.

Buuut, as I said, I haven't played it yet, so all I can go on is what others say. Finding it hard to get a copy out here in the distant East. It might be absolute shit, and everyone back home just playing a prank on me...

 

[beniki]

So then the next game will be Skyrim's legacy

As you say, it's universally loved, but I'm afraid you're wrong in your last argument. It isn't just a great game for Elder Scrolls fans. It's a great game for everybody.

In other words, the formula is as close to RPG perfection as it's ever been, and there are very, very few people saying otherwise. That'll be it's long lasting impact... people copying the formula.

Buuut, as I said, I haven't played it yet, so all I can go on is what others say. Finding it hard to get a copy out here in the distant East. It might be absolute shit, and everyone back home just playing a prank on me...

Whoa, hang on, wait...

1)I have played the game, and you haven't, and you're telling ME what it is and isn't? As if we're discussing facts and not your opinion, which is based on nothing but what you've heard, from other gushing fanboys? THIS, is my problem with Skyrim fans... @King of the Sandbox, I hope you read this dude.

2)There is no game thats a great game for everyone, that's just a completely ridiculous thing to say. It's a great game for people that like massive worlds and RPG systems, but it isn't an FPS, so FPS lovers are playing cod/bf3(of which, there are a shit load more then Skyrim), it isn't a 2d platformer so those fans are playing Rayman, it isn't a puzzle game, a JRPG, a tactics RPG, an RTS, a Zelda game, a racing game... There is no such thing as something thats great for everyone and achieves everything. It's impossible.

3)It's not RPG perfection. Firstly, that notion is completely subjective, secondly, this isn't even the only way to do an RPG. JRPGs have had numerous games that have really stood the test of time, (and actually DO have a genuine legacy) by doing the complete opposite thing and rather then giving you a massive world and a toolkit and just given options, they give you a massive world, with a cast of deep, memorable characters and an epic story, masterfully written and told. Chrono Trigger and early FF games say hi.

That's three strikes.

Er... yeah. I said in my first post I haven't played the game yet. But, like one of the original Elder Scrolls developers said when he was asked about Skyrim, he hadn't played it but was getting a 'contact high' from peoples opinion of it.

But you're right. I don't know the game, so I can't comment on it. I can talk about the impact though, which is the topic. The game made a big splash... it'd be kind of silly to say there will be no ripples

 

[Manji187]

I'm sure it will be remembered...for a while. Can't say whether it will be remembered 20 years from now though.

 

[aksel]

Despite it's bugs, same-y landscape, lack of huge cities and the incredibly anti-climax of an ending, yes, because all of those statements stay true to the Elder Scrolls games.

All Bethesda games are riddled with bugs at first.

Skyrim is based on Scandinavia. I've lived in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and the landscape, though same-y, is based on the snowy and mountainous regions of Norway and Sweden.

The larger cities (holds I think) are based upon a mix of middle-age castles, with city life exponentially growing around it. The smaller ones are based upon viking settlements-turned-towns. Bethesda has done some research on the latter, as the houses (building style and placement) is a very good match to the old viking settlements.

As of the anti-climactic ending: Oblivion had it as well. Can't remember Morrowind or Daggerfall, as it is overshadowed by immense awesomeness. Haven't played Arena, so yeah.


In the end it is a fantastic game that will somewhat set the standard for western RPG's a few centimeters higher. Say what you want, it will be remembered for being an outstanding Elder Scrolls game, like all the rest.

 

[sifffffff]

What is a Skyrim?

But seriously I remember both Morrowind and Oblivion as some of the best games I've ever played so I'm sure this will be the case for Skyrim.