Would someone like Skyrim/Oblivion if they loved Bioshock? (EDITED TITLE)

[monkyvirus]

Put it this way I love Bioshock but I hate TES. This is because I do not like RPGs, primarily because I want a story with direction and I hate levelling, grinding etc.

As has been said they're different types of games, to put in terms of series you will probably know well: Bioshock is Zelda and TES are Final Fantasy. Basically, if you like to know where you're going, why you're going there and to not have to debate the pros and cons of hundreds of different items RPGs, like TES, aren't for you. Of course lots of people like both and to be fair action/adventure and RPG have a lot of crossover so I can see why you asked this question.

Basically go play a friend's copy see if you like it, but when it comes down to it RPG's are for people who like customisability and full control of most of their gaming experience if you prefer just chasing the main story and going with the flow then you may find TES tedious, obtuse and annoying.

 

[Yeager942]

Do you like open world games?
Do I enjoy having no direction other than my own will to lead me?
Do I really like vikings?
Can I forgive bad and repetitive voice acting?
Can I look past the bugs that really bother me?


If you agree with 3 of these, you will like Skyrim.

1) kinda, I only like linear games when they are short, sweet and fast paced.
2) not really, I guess casually. It's goof to be working towards some goal
3) No more than anyone else, definitely not as much as mutant 1950's gangsters
4) Only if hilariously bad (Resident Evil 1996) but if it is competently boring, that's the worst
5) graphical, maybe. But physics, no! Graphics come and go with every year, I can suspend disbelief on some dodgy textures. But screw with my pace at your peril. Especially framerate and screentear GRRR!

So
Yes, no, no, probably not, and maybe.

(wait, how can the last one, tolerating a type of mistake, be a recommendation? Are the bugs a feature of Bethesda games?)

Hmm. I realise I may just be wishing out loud there aren't more games like Bioshock...

My wording for the last one is a bit off, so let me rephrase it. "Do bugs bother me?" There are a few physics bugs in the game (Check youtube for what happens when I giant kills you. It's quite hilarious), but they are not as crippling as they were in New Vegas.

Personally, Bioshock is one of my favorite games ever, but it is really dissimilar from Skyrim. The biggest deal breaker is the tone and style of gameplay. Bioshock is dark and brooding and very focused. Skyrim, however, is a giant sandbox that does very little to hold your hand. Its tone is more of grand adventure, and while its story is a little weak in my opinion, it makes up for this with a very rich lore. While I may be disinterested with what an NPC has to say to me, I love stumbling across ancient ruins and reading the journal of an explorer who was eaten by frost trolls.

Skyrim drops you from the character creation screen and says "go nuts." If you enjoy a much more directed style of rpg, than it may not be your kind of game. It's really just a matter of taste, and as I enjoy both directed, linear games and open-world ones, I found myself enjoying both.

 

[Wekub]

There's no connection there that guarantees either result. But I think I'd have bought and enjoyed Bioshock if it hadn't seemed so damn scary, and I love the Elder Scrolls games. Go for it. Skyrim is teh awesomest.

 

[prowll]

Oblivion is under 20$ on Steam now; I'd say try it, if you like it, you'll like Skyrim. Bioshock doesn't compare. (Actually, for TES, I'm not sure ANYTHING compares. I don't like most RPG's, but Skyrim was probably my biggest 'must have' for the year.)

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Are the bugs a feature of Bethesda games?)

Oh yes! I'm surprised they don't mention it on the box. "Now with more amusing bugs!"

But seriously, you do have to accept a certain amount of glitches when you commit to a Bethesda game.

OT: I loved Bioshock, mostly because I love atmospheric story driven games. I also loved Oblivion/Skyrim because I love open world exploration games.

Bioshock is very linear and gives you only binary or mostly inconsequential choices like what to spend your Adam on and whether or not to harvest the Little Sisters. There's only the one story in Bioshock and you're stuck being the protagonist they choose for you.

Skyrim is huge and open and you can pretty much do what you want. There are many, many stories to be found in Skrim and you can be whoever the hell you want. You can become a mighty dragon slayer or a pacifist who does nothing but picks flowers and makes potions to sell in the towns/cities!

EDIT: They are not the only two options, you just make it up as you go along really, like I just did!

 

[Treblaine]

Bioshock? You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s largely linear underwater city with Anne Rand undertones to fight mutants with guns and mutant powers? How would that be similar in any way to an open world viking fantasy game?

They're both RPGs, pretty much. In first person perspective.

You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s

You know that also describes Fallout 3, aka "Fallout mod for Oblivion".

Apart from the semantics of locale, what is the REAL difference. I'm hoping for some kind of consensus here, does The Elder Scrolls completely lack and overarching story of the location, does it have zero political or social commentary? I never saw Bioshock as that linear, you have about 8 zones that are far from linear:

They are labyrinthine, like a series of dungeons linked together with the overworld cut out entirely as the overworld is pretty much just a bloody submarine ride. Skippable. (doesn't Oblivion end up effectively end up as that with fast-travel you skip the overworld almost entirely.)

 

[skywolfblue]

Do you like open world games?
Do I enjoy having no direction other than my own will to lead me?
Do I really like vikings?
Can I forgive bad and repetitive voice acting?
Can I look past the bugs that really bother me?


If you agree with 3 of these, you will like Skyrim.

1) kinda, I only like linear games when they are short, sweet and fast paced.
2) not really, I guess casually. It's goof to be working towards some goal
3) No more than anyone else, definitely not as much as mutant 1950's gangsters
4) Only if hilariously bad (Resident Evil 1996) but if it is competently boring, that's the worst
5) graphical, maybe. But physics, no! Graphics come and go with every year, I can suspend disbelief on some dodgy textures. But screw with my pace at your peril. Especially framerate and screentear GRRR!

So
Yes, no, no, probably not, and maybe.

(wait, how can the last one, tolerating a type of mistake, be a recommendation? Are the bugs a feature of Bethesda games?)

Hmm. I realize I may just be wishing out loud there aren't more games like Bioshock...

Going by that, I'm going to vote "Probably not going to like". Other then the whole "Magic in one hand sword in the other" they're pretty much completely opposite ends of the gaming spectrum.

 

[DarkRyter]

Actually, now that I think about it, they are kinda similar.

Alot of looting, alot of skill building, and alot of first person combat, and alot of variable playstyles.

So, yeah, play both. Lots of people love each game, so I'm pretty damn sure there's alot of people who love both.

 

[Smertnik]

A stylised linear FPS vs an open-world RPG? I don't quite see any possible relations. Hence it doesn't matter how many people like both games. I, for one, enjoyed Bioshock and found Oblivion boring.

 

[franconbean]

4) Only if hilariously bad (Resident Evil 1996) but if it is competently boring, that's the worst

There is one voice actor for generic NPCs who sounds like the Terminator if that helps. That is pretty funny. The voice acting isn't all bad. Sheogorath and Cicero, for example, are impeccably scripted and voiced.
Of course, both of them are insane.

 

[Fiad]

Not really games you can compare all that much, so not sure how much asking that will be. I highly enjoy both, but I know many people who like one but not the other and people who like both. It just boils down to who you are and what you like.

 

[Furioso]

Bioshock? You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s largely linear underwater city with Anne Rand undertones to fight mutants with guns and mutant powers? How would that be similar in any way to an open world viking fantasy game?

They're both RPGs, pretty much. In first person perspective.

You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s

You know that also describes Fallout 3, aka "Fallout mod for Oblivion".

Apart from the semantics of locale, what is the REAL difference. I'm hoping for some kind of consensus here, does The Elder Scrolls completely lack and overarching story of the location, does it have zero political or social commentary? I never saw Bioshock as that linear, you have about 8 zones that are far from linear:



They are labyrinthine, like a series of dungeons linked together with the overworld cut out entirely as the overworld is pretty much just a bloody submarine ride. Skippable. (doesn't Oblivion end up effectively end up as that with fast-travel you skip the overworld almost entirely.)

To answer the first question, there is a story you can follow, but what happens is that you go "oh that looks like some cool ruins over there" and then suddenly its 35 hours later and you still haven't gotten past the main stories halfway mark, and as for fast travel it still exists but you can no longer fast travel to the main cities right of the bat, you have to actually travel to them first

 

[Scrustle]

I think if you liked Bioshock there's a good chance you will like Skyrim. If you really liked the RPG elements of Bioshock then Skyrim can deliver that by the boatload. It is an RPG after all. The combat system in Skyrim was actually influenced by Bioshock and the plasmid system, so that will be familiar. The game is a lot slower paced than Bioshock but it's much deeper and richer. It might be a bit overwhelming if you're not used to a game of that scale but the game does everything needed to make it understandable. I would definitely give the game a go if I were you.

 

[Westaway]

But Bioshock has, like 3 enimies, how can you say Skyrim and Oblivion lack variety?

 

[VoidWanderer]

So, someone sell Skyrim to me. I see it everywhere but I don't see the fuss?

Any gaming store could help with that.

Seriously though... While I loved Bioshock up to the entertainment area, I enjoy Skyrim more because of the multiple types of animals trying to eat you. The environment is as impressive as the first sight of Rapture.

The whole experience feels more rewarding than Bioshock because the world feels more alive.

Buy the game, if you don't like it get a refund.

 

[BRex21]

As someone who really liked oblivion and didnt even bother to finish bioshock, i would say no. They are very different. Liking one will not mean that you will DISLIKE the other one but i dont really see all that much similarity between the two.

 

[Continuity]

...

So, someone sell Skyrim to me. I see it everywhere but I don't see the fuss?

Its more RPG and less action, if you most liked the action aspects of Bioshock then you would probably find TES boring.

Just a guess.

 

[Treblaine]

Bioshock? You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s largely linear underwater city with Anne Rand undertones to fight mutants with guns and mutant powers? How would that be similar in any way to an open world viking fantasy game?

They're both RPGs, pretty much. In first person perspective.

You mean the game where you go into a pseudo-futuristic 1950s

You know that also describes Fallout 3, aka "Fallout mod for Oblivion".

Apart from the semantics of locale, what is the REAL difference. I'm hoping for some kind of consensus here, does The Elder Scrolls completely lack and overarching story of the location, does it have zero political or social commentary? I never saw Bioshock as that linear, you have about 8 zones that are far from linear:



They are labyrinthine, like a series of dungeons linked together with the overworld cut out entirely as the overworld is pretty much just a bloody submarine ride. Skippable. (doesn't Oblivion end up effectively end up as that with fast-travel you skip the overworld almost entirely.)

To answer the first question, there is a story you can follow, but what happens is that you go "oh that looks like some cool ruins over there" and then suddenly its 35 hours later and you still haven't gotten past the main stories halfway mark, and as for fast travel it still exists but you can no longer fast travel to the main cities right of the bat, you have to actually travel to them first

To me, overworld is promise of greatness not a guarantee of worth. What are these messages I hear of? I loved finding messages in Rapture as they told of the weird past of the place, the rise, the fall, the experiment, the prelude. What is there worth hearing about in skyrim?

What is the enemy variety like in Oblivion versus Skyrim? I mean real variety, in how they attack in terms of range, mobility, style and so on not a reskin and health-buff. I know skyrim has dragons and giants, but what about oblivion is there enemies that you really dor have to think about fighting or avoiding in totally different ways?

 

[Fbuh]

This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

Q: What's the difference between an orange?
A: Cows don't have radar.

The two games are each good, though I wouldn't really compare them. Oblivion/Skyrim are a lot more sandbox (fuck it, they're the freaking desert), so there is a lot more room for customization.