First Person: Skyrim is Soulless
- Thread starter Dennis Scimeca
- Start date
Maybe Agnis didn't react because that was the 5th time that had happened that week, and it was only Tuesday.
I don't disagree. Only, it's strange that Dennis is compulsively obsessed with the net sale value of every item in Skyrim, and yet so thrown by an 'off' response from an NPC. I didn't know min-max'ers overlapped with serious role-players. I am educated.Athinira said:
Totally commiserate. My experience with the killing a dragon in town was quite different - Afterwards, they encircled the dragon, amazed at the beast and to be in the presence of Dragonborn. It was a great moment.Nurb said:
The only immersion-killer there was that they killed the dragon, I just shot at it from behind a bush.
The pursuit of this degree of freedom is admirable, even if Bethesda has a ways to go yet.
Using the wrong tactics/making the wrong decisions and "playing a game wrong" are two different things. It's not the same at all. When I'm talking about "playing the game wrong", i mean playing the game in a way the game doesn't invite you to in the first place.Kimarous said:
From your description (having never played the game), it seems like Ocarina of Time is a game that doesn't paint a flowing weak spot on a boss and instead invites you to experiment until you find the right tactic, which you eventually did. So you didn't play the game wrong ;o)
Except that you don't define that yourself. What you enjoy or don't enjoy as a human is a product of your personality, NOT of your free will. I can't "decide" what i like or don't like. At best, i can try to enforce a mindset upon myself, but that's still a "fake" mindset in the same way that trying to convince myself that I'm in love with a chair doesn't make me in love with it.Skratt said:
And I'm having fun with Skyrim. What I'm arguing, however, is that I (and MANY other people) could have had so much more fun if Bethesda has just improved on some of the games flaws and had a better sense of game and world design. The worst part is that they are actually really close.... but still no cigar :-(
Like it or not, as human beings we react to stimuli (including digital entertainment), and while every human is different, there is typically some stimuli that we statistically react to more than others. It's not that Skyrim lacks good stimuli, to me it's more like it's attempting to drown us in some of it while withholding the rest.... i just want to taste it all and live to see the day! ;P
I don't get people who always say that "I didn't know X overlapped with Y". Everything can overlap with almost everything. Human diversity at its finest ;-)Levethian said:
That's the primary reason I wasn't quite as oogly-boogly over New Vegas as some of the other older fans were: it doesn't really feel like I've made an impact when the game feels the need to sit me down and explain that I've made an impact, then casually change the subject if I ask for any details. It's still a good game, and to be honest, none of the games really did this well; it's as if the entire franchise has some crippling fear of the "falling action" portion of the plot. But the original Fallout at least gave a token falling action with the conversation with the Overseer, and you got to witness the results of some of your choices firsthand after the resolution in 2 & 3 (with the expansion). I still liked the game, and I understand why they couldn't personally demonstrate all of your choices, but the ending just felt dramatically unsatisfying to me.Danyal said:
I wish people would stop referring to Fallout NV as if it represents Bethesda getting it right, so to speak. Yes, they published it, but Obsidian developed it, and it shows.
Obsidian is, imo, an underrated developer; their execution seems to fall short of their intentions more often than not (KotOR 2 is a great example). I suspect they just need more money and time.
I've always felt that Obsidian lies somewhere between Bethesda and Bioware: content-drive vs character-driven. YMMV.
Obsidian is, imo, an underrated developer; their execution seems to fall short of their intentions more often than not (KotOR 2 is a great example). I suspect they just need more money and time.
I've always felt that Obsidian lies somewhere between Bethesda and Bioware: content-drive vs character-driven. YMMV.
I haven't played Skyrim yet, and I probably won't for a long time, but I guess I'm lucky since this wouldn't affect me. I probably would've just happily stolen everything in the fort without a second thought.
Fair comment. By the 500th time Adrianne the Warmaiden blacksmith lady said ?you get things done, I like that? (my personal ?arrow through the knee?), what began as an affirmation that I was making a difference became a meaningless, rote reminder that this was a game and this was all I was going to hear from her. At least people have stopped trying to start a conversation with me while I am trying to fight a goddam dragon. Or maybe I just stopped noticing.
Although I don?t regret the purchase, I am less entranced by the world as the hardcore fans so that doesn?t help. Having put close to 90 hours into Skyrim I can speak to it?s addictive quality, but once the magic of upping skills and attaining gear wore off, everything became far less engaging so I?ll probably sell up once the main quest is done. It feels that in the quest for scope, Bethesda sacrificed depth- a smaller cast with longer and more varied quests would have contributed enormously to it?s longevity, for me at least.
Although I don?t regret the purchase, I am less entranced by the world as the hardcore fans so that doesn?t help. Having put close to 90 hours into Skyrim I can speak to it?s addictive quality, but once the magic of upping skills and attaining gear wore off, everything became far less engaging so I?ll probably sell up once the main quest is done. It feels that in the quest for scope, Bethesda sacrificed depth- a smaller cast with longer and more varied quests would have contributed enormously to it?s longevity, for me at least.
This was one among many problems I had with skyrim. The first was the sheer ease of the game. Oblivion on the hardest difficulty required planning, strategy, and your build gave you the tools to overcome it yet there was always a way out of the most demanding and confounding confrontations.
In skyrim set to highest difficulty, you need none of that, dragons are soloable after a few levels and their novelty not-withstanding a level more, melee gives you a headstart and magic removes all difficulty in the later quests, and the guild quests are over and done with in a few hours. Even the dragonshout destroys would-be obstacles once you learn the one that knocks over and paralyzes foes for several seconds.
Oblivion before and after the game-enhancing mods gave me the challenge and open-world rpg experience I craved and still crave, many playthroughs had and completed. They should've took a look at what they had done and the mods that enhanced it and sought to make a game that exceeded that combined level of excellence but instead seemed to have felt out-done and under-shot what could've been a great opportunity. It'll take a long time before the skyrim mods catch up to the years of creating that oblivion spawned and is still spawning. I see the amount of things that came from it as reciprocity, bethesda gave so much and in return, the community gave back more, almost like a thank you . With what skyrim added... I don't know if that encourages anything more than the basic things modded bethesda games are given i.e. mod manager and fixes.
I could go on making this a blog-esque tear down of skyrim and seeing how disliking this game is "unpopular," usually warrants bashing but this gives me the opportunity to say the above and one last thing, I no longer believe bethesda brings challenge and substance that the previous games had. Elder scrolls is now the call of duty for rpgs and bethesda seems to be $atisfied with that.
In skyrim set to highest difficulty, you need none of that, dragons are soloable after a few levels and their novelty not-withstanding a level more, melee gives you a headstart and magic removes all difficulty in the later quests, and the guild quests are over and done with in a few hours. Even the dragonshout destroys would-be obstacles once you learn the one that knocks over and paralyzes foes for several seconds.
Oblivion before and after the game-enhancing mods gave me the challenge and open-world rpg experience I craved and still crave, many playthroughs had and completed. They should've took a look at what they had done and the mods that enhanced it and sought to make a game that exceeded that combined level of excellence but instead seemed to have felt out-done and under-shot what could've been a great opportunity. It'll take a long time before the skyrim mods catch up to the years of creating that oblivion spawned and is still spawning. I see the amount of things that came from it as reciprocity, bethesda gave so much and in return, the community gave back more, almost like a thank you . With what skyrim added... I don't know if that encourages anything more than the basic things modded bethesda games are given i.e. mod manager and fixes.
I could go on making this a blog-esque tear down of skyrim and seeing how disliking this game is "unpopular," usually warrants bashing but this gives me the opportunity to say the above and one last thing, I no longer believe bethesda brings challenge and substance that the previous games had. Elder scrolls is now the call of duty for rpgs and bethesda seems to be $atisfied with that.
Sounds to me that you simply don't like the game as it is, and there's your reasoning right there. I can understand your wanting to RP in the game and expect it to be fluidly conducive for doing so, however coming out and saying that you're utterly disinterested in the story and that all you really want to do is clear out dungeons and sell the loot kinda says that you have a very simplistic view of the game. If all you want to do is go around killing NPCs, why not give Saints Row 3 a try? I hear there's plenty of mindless NPC slaughter in there.Dennis Scimeca said:
The point I'm trying to make is that if you don't like the story behind a game to the point that you can easily say "I was completely disinterested in the story and only cared about taking their stuff was my first clue that something was off about Skyrim." I suggest that deep down you never liked Skyrim in the first place...and if you're playing a game that deep down you don't like, of course you're going to feel that there's something wrong with it.
There's so much to do in Skyrim, all sorts of interesting and fun quests and storylines to get involved with, and yet you boiled your experience down to just dungeon clearing? Of course you're gonna think the game his hollow and souless, you haven't ACTUALLY been playing it! If you give up on the story(ies) presented in an RPG then you've given up on the game itself and as such are officially killing more time than NPCs. I'm certain any one of us who thoroughly enjoy the game would feel as bored as you do if we just said "Screw the story, I'm doing nothing but dungeon crawling." Skyrim is BUILT around the stories within it, if you ignore/avoid them then there is absolutely no point to be playing it. The same would be true about Oblivion if you just ignored its story, just as it would be true about the Fallout games or any other RPG for that matter.
That said, I will admit it's a bit iritating that after having won the Civil War for the Empire, people still talk about the Storm-Cloak leader as though he were still alive when I ask them what they think of the war.warning, contains spoilers:
the most fun thing that happened to me, was when i finished that quest where you get the little girl for the temple of dibella. the little girl saw me steal something and ran around crying. she even followed me upstairs, where the priestess took out a dagger and ran screaming and slashing after the little girl!
this game is so disconnected from it's own reality it becomes a parody in and on itself.
the most fun thing that happened to me, was when i finished that quest where you get the little girl for the temple of dibella. the little girl saw me steal something and ran around crying. she even followed me upstairs, where the priestess took out a dagger and ran screaming and slashing after the little girl!
this game is so disconnected from it's own reality it becomes a parody in and on itself.
This is exactly why I don't even like the idea of Elder Scrolls games.Dennis Scimeca said:
What's the point of Role Playing in a single player game like this?
At least when I play D&D, I'm role playing with others. Single player role playing just kinda reminds me of Text based role playing by yourself...
I think this is why that idea of a 'Skyrim-Dragon Age baby' came up. It would be awesome to have the openness and options and freedom of Skyrim with the story and character development and consequences of a Bioware game.
I enjoy playing Skyrim very much, but it is totally lacking in story. I mean, the best they could come up with was a ripoff of Romans vs Celts/Picts/Germans/northern tribespeople?
I know, I know, it's a fraction more complicated than that, but really, it's pretty bland. I can't actually even care enough about one side or the other to decide whether I should join the Stormcloaks or the Imperials yet...
In Dragon Age, on the other hand, although the world is more limited, I actually *felt* the injustice of the way Mages were treated (even though my character wasn't one), and I genuinely raged when
So, yeah. Skyrim is a great and entertaining series of diversions, and some very beautifully presented grind, but it would need a huge injection of story to become what *I* would consider the perfect WRPG. I still enjoy it very much, though, the same way I loved Dragon Age 2 but would have killed for a bit more variety in the dungeons!!
I enjoy playing Skyrim very much, but it is totally lacking in story. I mean, the best they could come up with was a ripoff of Romans vs Celts/Picts/Germans/northern tribespeople?
I know, I know, it's a fraction more complicated than that, but really, it's pretty bland. I can't actually even care enough about one side or the other to decide whether I should join the Stormcloaks or the Imperials yet...
In Dragon Age, on the other hand, although the world is more limited, I actually *felt* the injustice of the way Mages were treated (even though my character wasn't one), and I genuinely raged when
Anders blew up the Chantry, because I understood why he did it, but terrorism is never the way and he'd managed to kill the one woman in the Chantry who actually seemed to have a functioning brain *and* a chance of making a difference to the mess that was going on...I actually had to really stop and think whether I wanted to kill Anders where he stood or give him a second chance
So, yeah. Skyrim is a great and entertaining series of diversions, and some very beautifully presented grind, but it would need a huge injection of story to become what *I* would consider the perfect WRPG. I still enjoy it very much, though, the same way I loved Dragon Age 2 but would have killed for a bit more variety in the dungeons!!
I also agree with the F/b comments. The article is legit, but Skyrim (and similar games) are like a skeleton waiting for your own flesh to be added on it. Everything is made up by you; it's like a table-top, with a massive canvas. For example, I used my own imagination to explain who the hero was; why this was happening. Why he was going here next. Etc.PhantomEcho said:
This is a contrast to the other RPGs that hold your hand and deliver things in a much more linear fashion and define most of the elements for you. Both game types have their flaws and strengths.
Edit: on a note, however, it is kind of annoying when NPCs repeat the same line 3,000 times. They start becoming defined by that one and single line
I know exactly the dungeon you are taking about. But you seem to have missed a VERY impotent thing.
IF you had covered her again, for a third time, she would have told you that she comes with the place.
The fort is her home, and she is a stubborn old coot who wont move, so when someone moves in she tells them she is not going any ware. THAT'S why she was not bothered by the bodys. She is used of it happening. In fact, I think she has more soul than any other NPC in the game, simply due to her stubborn-no-fuss attitude to the things going on around her.
IF you had covered her again, for a third time, she would have told you that she comes with the place.
The fort is her home, and she is a stubborn old coot who wont move, so when someone moves in she tells them she is not going any ware. THAT'S why she was not bothered by the bodys. She is used of it happening. In fact, I think she has more soul than any other NPC in the game, simply due to her stubborn-no-fuss attitude to the things going on around her.
to be fair I think there was a reason for that...there were so many different outcomes for everything that doing anything after the "endgame" would have been too hard..I think anyway, I think they mentioned it in regards to not having any DLC that takes place "after"Danyal said:
that said my memory may be hazy
if that was the case then I would prefer that, rather than them "overiding" what ever decisions you made just so you could keep playing (and personally I dont often find any reason to continue playing anyway)
I think with fallout 3 there were less outcomes....good...bad...neutral, you were always going to go down a similar path