Whelp, time to beef up the gaming rig before this comes out. Second 6870, here I come! Here's to hoping that the game actually utilizes Graphics Cards in xFire (I'm looking at you The Witcher 2)
Am I the only one wondering why this is seen as a good thing? I don't want my sequels to simply be prettier versions of what already exists, especially since I was massively underwhelmed by Oblivion. To each their own though, I will leave this where I pre-emptively placed it, in the "meh, don't really care" pile.Susan Arendt said:If you thought that Skyrim just looked like a prettier Oblivion [http://www.amazon.com/Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion-Game-Pc/dp/B000V9C9FO/], you're not too far off the mark.
Ah, ok, let me clarify. In Oblivion, you were either casting spells, or you were using weapons. In Skyrim, you put whatever you like in your left hand - a spell, a staff, a dagger, an axe, a shield, whatever - and then do the same for your right. Want to carry a shield and be armed with a heal spell? You can. Want to put a fire spell in each hand so that you can effectively wield a more powerful spell? No problem.Zom-B said:I don't want to take anything away from what Skyrim is trying to do or how great it is sounding, but I don't understand this point:
"the game lets you fight however you like simply by choosing what you'd like each hand to do."
Didn't we already do this in Oblivion? I often had a character that would blast away with spells from long range and once the enemy got closer I'd switch to melee. I guess what I'm not getting is how fundamentally different or superior the new version is. Game journalists keep touting the choice we have in combat, but it doesn't really sound new to me, just slightly evolved. Am I missing something here?
Well, the outdoor environments were very much like Oblivion - there are points of interest, like towns and caves and monuments scattered around, so exploring will definitely be beneficial. We didn't see a whole lot of dungeon, but I really liked what we were shown.plainlake said:Did the landscapes look generic or did you feel that you needed to explore every nook and cranny? I know this is hard to say from a hands-off demo.
No, no, I get that but even so, it doesn't really sound that different. I get that it's probably much better, but I think the emphasis that it's a "new" feature is misleading. Oblivion gave us lots of choice too and didn't really hammer us into a predefined class either. Sure, you chose or created one which gave your stats a starting point, but from there on out you could fight and cast spells however you saw fit, within your abilities.Susan Arendt said:Ah, ok, let me clarify. In Oblivion, you were either casting spells, or you were using weapons. In Skyrim, you put whatever you like in your left hand - a spell, a staff, a dagger, an axe, a shield, whatever - and then do the same for your right. Want to carry a shield and be armed with a heal spell? You can. Want to put a fire spell in each hand so that you can effectively wield a more powerful spell? No problem.Zom-B said:I don't want to take anything away from what Skyrim is trying to do or how great it is sounding, but I don't understand this point:
"the game lets you fight however you like simply by choosing what you'd like each hand to do."
Didn't we already do this in Oblivion? I often had a character that would blast away with spells from long range and once the enemy got closer I'd switch to melee. I guess what I'm not getting is how fundamentally different or superior the new version is. Game journalists keep touting the choice we have in combat, but it doesn't really sound new to me, just slightly evolved. Am I missing something here?
It's a more flexible mix-and-match approach to combat/defense. But I don't think you're wrong calling it an evolution of what was already there, though this allows for greater blending of playstyles, especially when it's combined with the new skill system.
I also played Morrowind first, (on the Xbox), then stopped for a few years, then played Oblivion when I got a 360, then I decided to go back and play Morrowind again (PC this time) because I felt like Oblivion was lacking in atmosphere. Only to find out, to my shock, that there were so many problems with Morrowind that I hadn't remembered, and although I still had a blast playing it, I found that some of these problems were way more prominent than I remembered. At which point I started playing Oblivion again, and I found out what a great game it really was once I stopped comparing it to my nostalgia of Morrowind, and instead compared it to Morrowind itself.Kahunaburger said:On the Oblivion vs. Morrowind thing, I actually played Morrowind first, then Oblivion, then went back to Morrowind with enough graphics mods to make my laptop cry, and ended up liking Morrowind a lot better on balance. There's just more stuff to do, and the NPCs are a few steps further away from the uncanny valley. IMHO, Oblivion was a step forward on graphics and melee, and a step back on aesthetics, setting, magic, and everything else. But I definitely think there's room for difference of opinion on this issue![]()
What did you mean by that? The NPC's in Morrowind were essentially walking menus. They didn't do anything except wander in a predefined area. In Oblivion, NPC's have actual schedules (buggy, glitchy schedules, but still a damn impressive feat nonetheless), and they feel like real people instead of clouds of ones and zeroes. It was so endearing to me the first time I stepped into the Arena, and saw other people in there, cheering a team on. It made me feel really immersed into a world full of people....and the NPCs are a few steps further away from the uncanny valley.
It might boil down to a personal preference thing. There are many things Morrowind does worse than Oblivion (melee combat, theft, and cliff racers being at the forefront) and many things it does better (world-building, magic, better mods, etc.) I personally like Morrowind a lot more, but I can see why other people might disagree with me, especially if you play anything other than a pure caster haha.T8B95 said:I also played Morrowind first, (on the Xbox), then stopped for a few years, then played Oblivion when I got a 360, then I decided to go back and play Morrowind again (PC this time) because I felt like Oblivion was lacking in atmosphere. Only to find out, to my shock, that there were so many problems with Morrowind that I hadn't remembered, and although I still had a blast playing it, I found that some of these problems were way more prominent than I remembered. At which point I started playing Oblivion again, and I found out what a great game it really was once I stopped comparing it to my nostalgia of Morrowind, and instead compared it to Morrowind itself.Kahunaburger said:On the Oblivion vs. Morrowind thing, I actually played Morrowind first, then Oblivion, then went back to Morrowind with enough graphics mods to make my laptop cry, and ended up liking Morrowind a lot better on balance. There's just more stuff to do, and the NPCs are a few steps further away from the uncanny valley. IMHO, Oblivion was a step forward on graphics and melee, and a step back on aesthetics, setting, magic, and everything else. But I definitely think there's room for difference of opinion on this issue![]()
One more thing:
What did you mean by that? The NPC's in Morrowind were essentially walking menus. They didn't do anything except wander in a predefined area. In Oblivion, NPC's have actual schedules (buggy, glitchy schedules, but still a damn impressive feat nonetheless), and they feel like real people instead of clouds of ones and zeroes. It was so endearing to me the first time I stepped into the Arena, and saw other people in there, cheering a team on. It made me feel really immersed into a world full of people....and the NPCs are a few steps further away from the uncanny valley.
This.Klagermeister said:11/11/11: The day I say goodbye to society to play Skyrim forever in my basement.
Friends, activities, family, food... All meaningless distractions from the glory that is Skyrim.
I saw this wasn't answered so I thought I'd clarify the differences for you.Zom-B said:No, no, I get that but even so, it doesn't really sound that different. I get that it's probably much better, but I think the emphasis that it's a "new" feature is misleading. Oblivion gave us lots of choice too and didn't really hammer us into a predefined class either. Sure, you chose or created one which gave your stats a starting point, but from there on out you could fight and cast spells however you saw fit, within your abilities.Susan Arendt said:Ah, ok, let me clarify. In Oblivion, you were either casting spells, or you were using weapons. In Skyrim, you put whatever you like in your left hand - a spell, a staff, a dagger, an axe, a shield, whatever - and then do the same for your right. Want to carry a shield and be armed with a heal spell? You can. Want to put a fire spell in each hand so that you can effectively wield a more powerful spell? No problem.Zom-B said:I don't want to take anything away from what Skyrim is trying to do or how great it is sounding, but I don't understand this point:
"the game lets you fight however you like simply by choosing what you'd like each hand to do."
Didn't we already do this in Oblivion? I often had a character that would blast away with spells from long range and once the enemy got closer I'd switch to melee. I guess what I'm not getting is how fundamentally different or superior the new version is. Game journalists keep touting the choice we have in combat, but it doesn't really sound new to me, just slightly evolved. Am I missing something here?
It's a more flexible mix-and-match approach to combat/defense. But I don't think you're wrong calling it an evolution of what was already there, though this allows for greater blending of playstyles, especially when it's combined with the new skill system.
Again, I'm getting that Skyrim will do it better, I just think the hype on the "choice" aspect is a bit disingenuous in some ways.
Uh, thanks? I guess? I know all this already. What I'm trying to say is that this is simply an improvement on how Oblivion handles character building.ultraddtd said:I saw this wasn't answered so I thought I'd clarify the differences for you.
In Oblivion you had Major, Minor and untagged skills. You either selected these by choosing a preset class or selecting the skills you wanted. Either way, your progression through the game was determined from those choices you made at the outset. Major skills increased dramatically through use, minor skills increased at a regular rate and untagged skills increased very, very slowly.
What this meant was, if you found a skill that you liked but didnt make a major skill it took a while to increase, and if it was untagged it took forever to increase.
Skyrim does away with the tagging. All skills increase at the same rate. Therefore, if there's a skill you like you can raise it at an except able rate. Also, since you're not locked into choices at the beginning, you can just do whatever and experiment.
There is a catch, however. Skill progression is linked to how your character levels up. Leveling skills is what increases your character level in Skyrim. The higher you level a skill the more it counts towards your character's next level. Therefore, working on a few skills will increase your character level faster than working on all of them equally. That may not seem like a big deal, however enemies don't scale 1to1 like they did in Oblivion, and you won't be able to play the entire game at level 3. Therefore, even though you can increase skills at the same rate, you might slow your progression by not trying to specialize in certain areas.