Anyone get the hate for Skyrim?

[stroopwafel]

I did enjoy Skyrim when it came out b/c exploring the huge map is pretty fun and you can do so at a leisurely pace as the game is never frustrating to play. Bethesda was one of the first that made these huge open worlds at a time having a huge open world was enough. But they have really been surpassed by other games when it comes to gameplay and story, and Bethesda never really innovates which I think is espescially obvious in Fallout 4. They are even still using that shitty Gamebryo engine(or whatever modified version) that make for such shitty graphics while other open world games have started to look downright gorgeous. Granted, graphics aren't everything but FO4 even seems a step back compared to Skyrim.

Bethesda pioneered open world games and Skyrim remains to have an accessibility that makes it easy to enjoy but I hope with the next game that they really start to innovate a little instead of repeating their now decades old template. Though with such sales figures there is very little need ofcourse.

 

[Kyrian007]

I get it. Its pretty simple. Haters are gonna hate. That's the simplest way to put it. Basically everything that is popular and has fans... has a dedicated and much smaller but very vocal group that hates it on the internet. And that goes both ways. Things that have received widespread scorn have a dedicated and much smaller but very vocal group that loves it and spews softball "reviews" and denounces "haters" on the internet.

Basically, the smaller group tries to yell much louder and be more annoying because they are in very real danger of being drown out by their opposition. And because social media these days lets people in their own echo chambers 'feel' like their opinions actually matter (when they actually don't) they can't stand being wrong. So with that mentality in mind, they wind up metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears and TALKING VERY LOUDLY I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALAL.

 

[sXeth]

Magic isnt much better, as the spells themselves lack punch for the most part(with big aoe spells being an exception). The relationship between ice magic and its effects on stamina(lightning and magic too) are rather cool, but feel like they are under tuned, like they dont effect those stats nearly as much as they should; It feels samey to use almost any straight damage spell because of this. Summon spells and status affect spells(like calm) seem pretty cool, but feel like they have less utility, and that your time would be better spent just attacking the enemy rather than giving them a debuff or summoning someone. On another note, enemy mages seem to even cheat the game by having a way higher magicka regeneration rate than the player, making them hell to fight against as a pure mage.

Yeah, the super-charged enemy magicka regen was ludicrous. Which simultaneously made some poisons, Wards entirely, and the shock effect draining magick all pointless. All to pad around an AI too dumb to use spells conservatively or something. Illusion was useful, but you needed a ton of perks, particularly that high tier one to make it work on Undead if you wanted to actually specialize there. Summons were one of the more effective ones, but watching a Daedra plow through guys while you twiddle your thumbs gets pretty boring. Zombies were more interesting, but that required you to a)Have killed something to begin with. b)The AI did such brilliant things as not picking up their weapon when the corpse reanimated.

 

[maninahat]

It's just a dull, dull game. I never found it hard, especially if you're willing to cheese the enemies, which the game hands you endless opportunities to do so. I didn't have much fun with it, even after sinking a 100 hours or more into it. My first 30 where on a laptop too slow to actually run the game at more than a few frames a second, even with the graphics on the ugliest settings, so by the time I upgraded I had had quite enough of sweeping heather vistas. Everything is so uninvolved and drab, from the locations to the characters to the missions.

You might be wondering why I pissed away that much time on a thing I didn't particularly enjoy. The reason is that Bathesda games are really good at the whole "Oh what's that over there?" curiosity stuff, and there is a slight skinnerbox itch to complete each and every dungeon you bump into. They're great at making a thing addictive, without making it enjoyable.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

What I really hated was the aesthetics.
I haven't played the other games in the franchise so maybe they're even uglier but the art design is awful.
I don't feel like exploring a world that I don't like to look at.

 

[Xprimentyl]

You might be wondering why I pissed away that much time on a thing I didn't particularly enjoy... They're great at making a thing addictive, without making it enjoyable.

That?s a curious sentiment; how can a thing be addictive without some level of enjoyment, at least up front? If there?s so much you fundamentally dislike, what do you think they could they possibly have hidden away to sate your curiosity that you?d even bother giving in to that ?Oh, what?s that over there? feeling that Bethesda does so insidiously well? Chances were, there was just more Bethesda ?dull as dishwater? ?round every corner.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I never played Morrowind, even though I've almost always been a PC gamer, but Oblivion was still my first kind of experience in an open-ended, free-roaming kind of RPG of that kind, and it just happened to hit all the right notes, for me personally.

I hear that a lot, and I do wonder what the gaming landscape would look like if that wasn't so common; if such a braindead, frankly artless game hadn't been the one to get the limelight. Everything Bethesda have done with TES and Fallout since has been in its image.

Indeed. If my issues with Skyrim weren't so heavily tied in with the regional setting I likely wouldn't have offered much complaint. Unfortunately, it's one of the tougher things to give any kind of a meaningful makeover through mods, especially for an Elder Scrolls game.

What about Skyrim's setting, specifically, put you off?

After Oblivion's primary hued cartoony nonsense I loved the relative grit and desaturation of Skyrim. When on a TES forum after Oblivion came out, Skyrim was commonly the setting I most wanted out of the next TES, that or Hammerfell (which is ideally where I'd like the next one to be, though I'd probably put bets against it now), and by the time Skyrim rolled around I'd come to terms with the new mass-market Bethesda, so actually greatly enjoyed it for what it was, as opposed to what it wasn't (same with Fallout 4).

It wasn't so much a complaint about dragons existing in the game so much as a general apathy at all the excitement I'd always hear people have about them, in regards to Skyrim.

I'd say I've always heard a very mixed set of reactions. They're all style and no substance, and even then that's a hit'n'miss affair given the open-world setting. Depending on where you are the attacks can be impressive mini events, or janky frustrations.

I tend to spend most of my time in Skyrim sans dragons, as I feel doing the MQ off the bat without getting an emergent story going beforehand robs the MQ of any real context. It's a poorly written 'story' anyway (just like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and much of F4), so it needs all the help it can get.

And maybe in a general sense, I dunno. Fighting one, especially through even the slightest of conventional means doesn't strike me as a very fun ordeal. I don't mind challenging fights, but fighting a dragon is pretty one-sided without some form of magic involved. Or a ground-to-air missile launcher.

When they're scaled (arf... ) to the player, and new tiers are essentially soft unlocked at leveling brackets, they're generally fairly ho-hum affairs. They're polite enough to land and let a melee character get some hits in, for example.

Mods can only go so far, too. Cosmetic diversity's all well and good, and shakes the routine up a bit, but stuff like Deadly Dragons has to contend with the general car-crash of balancing that these open-worlders inevitably are. I've seen people endure hour long encounters full of reloads, and they're just bland battles of attrition.

Dragon Age Inquisition's dragons were a far more engaging event, and even with DA:I's puddle shallow combat, far more tactical and rewardingly challenging. Never played Dragon's Dogma (outside a demo, which I really didn't enjoy), but it's always considered one of the best examples of combat vs big beasties, many of them winged.

Apropos TES's future: I wonder if they'll roll with another crisis. After 'demons are invading, kill teh demonz!' and 'dragons are showing up, kill teh dragonz!' I want something less arch, and more nuanced. Everything suggests an action oriented opening is here to stay, if only to jangle keys in front of the casual players to get their attention. I don't think they'll make the same mistake as Fallout 4, though, if anything Todd Howard can be believed, so no one should fear TES going linear narrative with an ostensibly fixed character.

You might be wondering why I pissed away that much time on a thing I didn't particularly enjoy. The reason is that Bathesda games are really good at the whole "Oh what's that over there?" curiosity stuff, and there is a slight skinnerbox itch to complete each and every dungeon you bump into. They're great at making a thing addictive, without making it enjoyable.

Did you actually try RP'ing characters? Typically the people who can most enjoy TES, very much including Skyrim, are those who put the effort into backstories, motivations/goals, etc. I've been mulling over incredibly detailed RP's with other players ever since Morrowind, so that is where the series' enduring appeal lies.

Viewed as a canvas with a set of tools to craft your own character's story, TES is in many ways still peerless (certainly as far as big budget, 3D open-world RPG's go).

 

[Ravinoff]

So I'm stated playing Divinity: Original Sin 2. It's a great example of what happens when you dont have scaling in your game. It negatively impacts your exploration. I also rememember in Fallout 4 delibrately going back through dungeons becuase they were a fun challenge. Having scaling has negatives and positves.

The Witcher 3 is another example of exploration done bad. For similar reasons. The best way to describe it, that I've heard, is that you have to play it on the games terms. Skryim is different.

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm kinda confused if you're pro-scaling or not. And there are arguments for both sides with that, to the point where I'm still a bit torn on the best approach. On one hand, with scaling you never run out of things to do...but you lose out on feeling like your character has progressed. Ie. you kill one Restless Draugr in Bleak Falls Barrow by slapping it around with an Iron Sword, that about covers it. The Draugr Death Overlords around every corner at level 50 are functionally no different, even when you're swinging a massive Legendary Enchanted Dragonbone Greatsword.

Whereas in Dark Souls, right off the bat at level nothing I can wander over into the Graveyard and Catacombs and get my ass stomped into the ground by a horde of giant skeletons. But when I come back a dozen hours and 75 levels later to hack my way into the Tomb of Giants, I'm rocking a +10 Divine Greatsword that smashes those fuckers into bonemeal, and it's enormously rewarding because I actually feel powerful (well, briefly, until Tomb of Giants kicks my ass again).

 

[Trunkage]

So I'm stated playing Divinity: Original Sin 2. It's a great example of what happens when you dont have scaling in your game. It negatively impacts your exploration. I also rememember in Fallout 4 delibrately going back through dungeons becuase they were a fun challenge. Having scaling has negatives and positves.

The Witcher 3 is another example of exploration done bad. For similar reasons. The best way to describe it, that I've heard, is that you have to play it on the games terms. Skryim is different.

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm kinda confused if you're pro-scaling or not. And there are arguments for both sides with that, to the point where I'm still a bit torn on the best approach. On one hand, with scaling you never run out of things to do...but you lose out on feeling like your character has progressed. Ie. you kill one Restless Draugr in Bleak Falls Barrow by slapping it around with an Iron Sword, that about covers it. The Draugr Death Overlords around every corner at level 50 are functionally no different, even when you're swinging a massive Legendary Enchanted Dragonbone Greatsword.

Whereas in Dark Souls, right off the bat at level nothing I can wander over into the Graveyard and Catacombs and get my ass stomped into the ground by a horde of giant skeletons. But when I come back a dozen hours and 75 levels later to hack my way into the Tomb of Giants, I'm rocking a +10 Divine Greatsword that smashes those fuckers into bonemeal, and it's enormously rewarding because I actually feel powerful (well, briefly, until Tomb of Giants kicks my ass again).

Yeah pretty much just this. I can't go where I want to go in most games. Think of New Vegas - You do have a back door to the major city but that's not the way your supposed to go due to the monsters in the back route. Instead, there is a certain path, a giant loop heading into New Vegas. The benefit is that that loop is curated and the developers can tailor it to tell a story or help feel empowered. But it doesn't allow much exploration. You cant pick a direction and see what's there.

In Divinity, I can see opponents that are too strong for me, that I have to come back later to find. Because they're in pockets all over the place, I have to make many mental notes. I cant just go there and try and tackle the problem. I have to wait.

I'm not pro or anti scaling. Each has its benefit and cons. I do get frustrated when I expect a certain thing (eg. Open World = exploration), and the game isn't designed around it. Another example is how people see the "RPGness" of TES diminishing over time. I can understand that frustration

 

[Vigormortis]

Because i don't get it.

As a long time fan of the Half-Life/Portal series, I have first hand experience with this sort of thing. As such, allow me to clarify the situation for you.

Is the game in question popular? Is the game in question influential in some way? Do a lot of people like the game and do they profess their enjoyment of the game to others?

If the answer is 'yes' to the above, then someone...somewhere...online or in real life[footnote]Usually the former as these sorts of bottom dwellers are too cowardly and antisocial to voice their deep-seeded bile in any situation where they might face real, meaningful consequences.[/footnote]...will decide that, because they don't like it, everyone else must hate it. In fact, these sorts of shit-eating neanderthals consider it an affront to their very being that anyone could possibly like something they don't. So, they take it upon themselves to force their way into any discussion on the game in question and, in their minds, 'educate' the 'ignorant masses' on why they are 'wrong' about their enjoyment of the game. They take it as some sort of personal vendetta to make sure that no one anywhere be allowed to like something that they don't like.

So, why is there hate for Skyrim? Because it is popular and there are people who like it and consider it fun. And, as far as some people are concerned, that just isn't allowed.

[sub]And before someone decides to get all uppity with me, I'm not saying someone can't have legitimate criticisms of the game. It's perfectly fine to not like the game for one reason or another. Hell, I don't even like Skyrim. But to vehemently HATE the game (or any game, really), and to forcibly scream that hate at those that do like the game, goes way beyond any sort of rational response.[/sub]

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Its largely due to it beinf the Elder Scrolls game that needs mods to make it fun the most. Without Mods Skyrim gets uber boring super quick and felt dated to look at fairly quickly as well.