First Person: Skyrim is Soulless

[Levethian]

gee, the game is "soulless" to you because they disnt give every single one of the literally thousands of characters a complete AI script to respond to everything that you might do around or to them?

puh-lease. this article is really misguided.

Well, Obsidian did an okay job in New Vegas. Although there were still elements of that that didn't respond well to complete freedom, it generally feels like your actions matter a lot more in that game.

New Vegas was somewhat more controlled than a traditional Bethesda game; If you tried going to New Vegas immediately, you'd get shredded. You were instead ushered down around a U-bend getting through the main quest-line incidentally as you went. And it ended, preventing the player from picking holes in the post-story world. I ended up preferring FO3 for the experience & freedom, even if NV had the more coherent story. I don't play Bethesda games for coherent stories .

Calling Skyrim 'Soulless' is... well, flame-bait, lets be honest.

 

[gideonkain]

"Skyrim is Souless" is such a silly proclamation it bothers me.

Take for example, any RPG on any system at anytime ever in the history of RPGs:

How interactive were the merchants at the store?
The people in the street with a single line of printed dialog?
The King/Queen on the throne who sits awaiting your quest complete 24/7 never sleeping or taking a bathroom break?

To expect more out of one randomly selected NPC out of hundreds of NPCs and then to pass judgement on an entire game whose scope basically makes it impossible for you to have experienced it all by now makes this article out to be just a "wish list" for RPGs in general and not a legitimate complaint about Skyrim itself.

 

[Sandernista]

snippy

I guess some of those bandits didn't like her cooking, she is the target of a Dark Brotherhood assassination.

ETA: This facebook guy said it best

Spoiler: Ozzie Seshie

I find, time and time again, a clear difference between those who seem to rabidly enjoy Skyrim, and those who really WANT to enjoy it, but always seem to come away short of some portion of the experience. At first that disparity puzzled me, but after going through a half dozen articles written in this vein, something becomes very clear. There are some, who load up Skyrim with the intention of participating a riveting story wherein they hope their presence will somehow impact the larger narrative, wherein they'll be presented with a dazzling tale that sweeps them away and offers them some memorable, remarkable experience, a treasure wrought by a craftsmen and delivered to you, the the consumer. More often than not, those people walk away from the game at least somewhat disappointed or underwhelmed. There are many novels, films, and even games, that provide such enthralling experiences, but Skyrim is not one of them.

Skyrim is for the roleplayers, the writers, the tabletop rpgers, the ones looking for a canvas and the opportunity to create something... glorious. In many ways, Skyrim becomes more a toolset than traditional game experience, giving you the means to shape something that's truly YOURS, your vision, your story. Not a story wherein you're inherently important, but a story you actually made. Skyrim strikes the sweet spot, for those people who know WHY their prisoner is on a wagon bound for execution before they've pressed the start button. It captivates the ones who know WHY this Prisoner would sooner side with the Imperials who nearly beheaded him, over the Nords who offered kinship at the chopping block. Skyrim offers skeletons of stories, bare bones affairs, to which you must add the flesh. It's why the world is so vast, it's why the character creation caters to the minutiae, even when you'll spend most of the game looking at the back of your characters head. Some of us know about the childhood hunting accident that caused the scar beneath our character's eye, some of us know why our character would lay down beneath the headsmen's act without a fight.

I'm honestly surprised by Skyrim's success. Most consumers are ill equipped to handle a world where they must provide the lion share of the creative input for their experience. Some balk at the prospect, others, myself included, revel in it. I think we bandy about the term sandbox too often today, in reference to games. Some have forgotten just what the sandbox was all about. You weren't given set pieces, or beautifully scripted lines spouted by perfectly dynamic miniatures. YOU gave that lumpy mound of clumped together sand value, YOU made it a castle, YOU made it the last freehold in the land not destroyed by the mighty sandworms (otherwise known as you left hand), YOU made its defense vital, and meaningful, and necessary. YOU gave it a soul.

Can you recapture that spark, the feverish creativity of simple days and simple joys, Dragonborn?

 

[Dhatz]

I observe something similar, I can't care less about games that think they matter, which is typical for RPGS, I stopped playing Witcher 2 after investigating the wreckage left behind Kayran.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I think you care too much, but I feel the same way about the game for a different reason: there's no reason for you, the player, to be there. The plot is tacked on and useless (and nothing happens if you ignore it altogether), nothing you do has any real weight, the combat is there for the sake of being there and no other, and no one reacts to you in the slightest unless you steal from them or attack them, and even then you can do so in ways they won't notice, as if everyone in the world is brain dead. I mean, NPCs are ultimately automatons, but Skyrim does just enough and nothing else to make them feel like it.

What this game lacks more than anything is giving purpose to your character. You're supposed to be saving the world (or at least changing it) and gives you this huge sense of scope to experience it in, yet it feels like the world is exactly the same no matter what you do to it, save that the stuff in it gets relocated by your hand every now and again. Not that anything notices or cares.

Skyrim has no point. That's why some people like it, but that's why I don't, and that's why you seem not to. Simple as that.

 

[civver]

So you use only one example that's doesn't prove much. Ever considered that she wants to stay there?

 

[viranimus]

But its a Bethesda made RPG.. wasnt that what you wanted when you got it? I mean if your going into a bethesda RPG and expecting to not fall into repetitive counter immersive gameplay in a land of picking up random bits of useless garbage that dont merit being coded as an pickable item complete with an item name, then what did you expect to see?

Thats why the Skyrim love astounds me. The game is the same tired mechanics and thematic tropes of Oblivion/fallout. It truly is taking a CoD approach to making RPGs and its very dissapointing. Bethesda actually has a good idea by not focusing on rebuilding gameplay mechanics every game should hypothetically allow them to focus on writing better stories and crafting better sets/events, but they seem bent on squandering that by focusing on a negligble texture resolution increase and copy pasta ing their game to high hell.


So yeah, if your looking for immersion or looking for a soul in a bethesda game, your at best looking in the wrong place and at worse absolutely delusional. Perhaps you should look at dark souls instead. Granted the story is not as good, but when Skyrim is doing the same tedious garbage again, its not like Darks souls really has to compete there, and on sheer gameplay Dark Souls is infinitely greater than Skyrim could ever hope to be.

Now, before the quote/flame war begins, I have expressed my opinion, nothing more. No one will dissuade me on that opinion, and to attempt do so would be wrong and as such I will ignore any quotes to illustrate how my opinion is wrong. Not trying to create a flame war. I just think its irrational to expect something from Bethesda when they have delivered something completely different for the last 4 outings.

 

[Hal10k]

snippy

I guess some of those bandits didn't like her cooking, she is the target of a Dark Brotherhood assassination.

ETA: This facebook guy said it best

Spoiler: Ozzie Seshie

I find, time and time again, a clear difference between those who seem to rabidly enjoy Skyrim, and those who really WANT to enjoy it, but always seem to come away short of some portion of the experience. At first that disparity puzzled me, but after going through a half dozen articles written in this vein, something becomes very clear. There are some, who load up Skyrim with the intention of participating a riveting story wherein they hope their presence will somehow impact the larger narrative, wherein they'll be presented with a dazzling tale that sweeps them away and offers them some memorable, remarkable experience, a treasure wrought by a craftsmen and delivered to you, the the consumer. More often than not, those people walk away from the game at least somewhat disappointed or underwhelmed. There are many novels, films, and even games, that provide such enthralling experiences, but Skyrim is not one of them.

Skyrim is for the roleplayers, the writers, the tabletop rpgers, the ones looking for a canvas and the opportunity to create something... glorious. In many ways, Skyrim becomes more a toolset than traditional game experience, giving you the means to shape something that's truly YOURS, your vision, your story. Not a story wherein you're inherently important, but a story you actually made. Skyrim strikes the sweet spot, for those people who know WHY their prisoner is on a wagon bound for execution before they've pressed the start button. It captivates the ones who know WHY this Prisoner would sooner side with the Imperials who nearly beheaded him, over the Nords who offered kinship at the chopping block. Skyrim offers skeletons of stories, bare bones affairs, to which you must add the flesh. It's why the world is so vast, it's why the character creation caters to the minutiae, even when you'll spend most of the game looking at the back of your characters head. Some of us know about the childhood hunting accident that caused the scar beneath our character's eye, some of us know why our character would lay down beneath the headsmen's act without a fight.

I'm honestly surprised by Skyrim's success. Most consumers are ill equipped to handle a world where they must provide the lion share of the creative input for their experience. Some balk at the prospect, others, myself included, revel in it. I think we bandy about the term sandbox too often today, in reference to games. Some have forgotten just what the sandbox was all about. You weren't given set pieces, or beautifully scripted lines spouted by perfectly dynamic miniatures. YOU gave that lumpy mound of clumped together sand value, YOU made it a castle, YOU made it the last freehold in the land not destroyed by the mighty sandworms (otherwise known as you left hand), YOU made its defense vital, and meaningful, and necessary. YOU gave it a soul.

Can you recapture that spark, the feverish creativity of simple days and simple joys, Dragonborn?

Your quote is well written, but doesn't really hold weight in the wake of Fallout: New Vegas. There you got a game that allowed you to roleplay just as much as Skyrim, but still allowed for an enthralling story and incredible characters and depth. After coming off of more than 250 hours of New Vegas, Skyrim (while still greatly enjoying it) feels somewhat hollow.

New Vegas had a more consistent story, but it did so by sacrificing exploration. The game world, as a whole, is a lot more limited than Bethesda's titles; your character is essentially sheperded down a linear valley for the first 2/3 of the game, and the non-story locations you visit tend to feel more shallow, with a lesser focus on the subtle backstories that Bethesda likes to cram into every location. You have places like Vault 11, but they felt few and far between. My opinion, of course.

Story and characterization are always going to be subjective, too. One man's rich and compelling character is going to be the most annoying thing on Earth to another. Personally, while I liked the faction leaders and companions in New Vegas, it really felt like all of the other characters were just there to take up space.

 

[Levethian]

New Vegas had a more consistent story, but it did so by sacrificing exploration. The game world, as a whole, is a lot more limited than Bethesda's titles; your character is essentially sheperded down a linear valley for the first 2/3 of the game, and the non-story locations you visit tend to feel more shallow, with a lesser focus on the subtle backstories that Bethesda likes to cram into every location. You have places like Vault 11, but they felt few and far between. My opinion, of course.

I don't know if I would say it sacrificed exploration... And yeah while some of the areas were pretty bare bones, when it was good it was better than anything I've seen Bethesda make in any of their games I've played.

Players who value story & characterization in games more than freedom & exploration will prefer NV over FO3. I fall into Hal10k's camp though - I preferred FO3 and the mess of a story that went with it.

In order to make the story cohesive, to some degree you *HAVE* to sacrifice exploration. Not sure New Vegas would have worked if the player was able to visit New Vegas from the start, or was allowed to play beyond the end of the game.

The Solitude & Whiterun Thane girls are planks of wood. Some of the mercs you pay for speak enough. Mjoll will talk about herself, but starts repeating lines quickly. Better characters needed, for sure. Construction Kit can't come soon enough!

 

[Sandernista]

snippy

I guess some of those bandits didn't like her cooking, she is the target of a Dark Brotherhood assassination.

ETA: This facebook guy said it best

Spoiler: Ozzie Seshie

I find, time and time again, a clear difference between those who seem to rabidly enjoy Skyrim, and those who really WANT to enjoy it, but always seem to come away short of some portion of the experience. At first that disparity puzzled me, but after going through a half dozen articles written in this vein, something becomes very clear. There are some, who load up Skyrim with the intention of participating a riveting story wherein they hope their presence will somehow impact the larger narrative, wherein they'll be presented with a dazzling tale that sweeps them away and offers them some memorable, remarkable experience, a treasure wrought by a craftsmen and delivered to you, the the consumer. More often than not, those people walk away from the game at least somewhat disappointed or underwhelmed. There are many novels, films, and even games, that provide such enthralling experiences, but Skyrim is not one of them.

Skyrim is for the roleplayers, the writers, the tabletop rpgers, the ones looking for a canvas and the opportunity to create something... glorious. In many ways, Skyrim becomes more a toolset than traditional game experience, giving you the means to shape something that's truly YOURS, your vision, your story. Not a story wherein you're inherently important, but a story you actually made. Skyrim strikes the sweet spot, for those people who know WHY their prisoner is on a wagon bound for execution before they've pressed the start button. It captivates the ones who know WHY this Prisoner would sooner side with the Imperials who nearly beheaded him, over the Nords who offered kinship at the chopping block. Skyrim offers skeletons of stories, bare bones affairs, to which you must add the flesh. It's why the world is so vast, it's why the character creation caters to the minutiae, even when you'll spend most of the game looking at the back of your characters head. Some of us know about the childhood hunting accident that caused the scar beneath our character's eye, some of us know why our character would lay down beneath the headsmen's act without a fight.

I'm honestly surprised by Skyrim's success. Most consumers are ill equipped to handle a world where they must provide the lion share of the creative input for their experience. Some balk at the prospect, others, myself included, revel in it. I think we bandy about the term sandbox too often today, in reference to games. Some have forgotten just what the sandbox was all about. You weren't given set pieces, or beautifully scripted lines spouted by perfectly dynamic miniatures. YOU gave that lumpy mound of clumped together sand value, YOU made it a castle, YOU made it the last freehold in the land not destroyed by the mighty sandworms (otherwise known as you left hand), YOU made its defense vital, and meaningful, and necessary. YOU gave it a soul.

Can you recapture that spark, the feverish creativity of simple days and simple joys, Dragonborn?

Your quote is well written, but doesn't really hold weight in the wake of Fallout: New Vegas. There you got a game that allowed you to roleplay just as much as Skyrim, but still allowed for an enthralling story and incredible characters and depth. After coming off of more than 250 hours of New Vegas, Skyrim (while still greatly enjoying it) feels somewhat hollow.

I disagree, Skyrim gives me so much more room to roleplay. New Vegas gives you a well written story, in Skyrim you are writing your own story. Whereas Skyrim thrusts you out into the world with only a fleeting enmity towards the Imperials, or Stormcloaks, New Vegas shows you a guy who shot you in the fucking head and buried you, and then tells you to go track him down. In Skyrim your companions are basically blank canvases, they come in multiple varieties; knight, mage, mercenary, assasin, but they all have little to no character, letting you build them yourself. New Vegas gives you characters with well written back story, special mention goes to Raul and Boon, but sometimes I don't want to hear someone else's heartbreaking tale, I want to create my own. I love New Vegas, it was my GOTY for 2010, and my most played game of all time. But as an RPG it just doesn't measure up to Skyrim.

 

[Hal10k]

snippy

I guess some of those bandits didn't like her cooking, she is the target of a Dark Brotherhood assassination.

ETA: This facebook guy said it best

Spoiler: Ozzie Seshie

I find, time and time again, a clear difference between those who seem to rabidly enjoy Skyrim, and those who really WANT to enjoy it, but always seem to come away short of some portion of the experience. At first that disparity puzzled me, but after going through a half dozen articles written in this vein, something becomes very clear. There are some, who load up Skyrim with the intention of participating a riveting story wherein they hope their presence will somehow impact the larger narrative, wherein they'll be presented with a dazzling tale that sweeps them away and offers them some memorable, remarkable experience, a treasure wrought by a craftsmen and delivered to you, the the consumer. More often than not, those people walk away from the game at least somewhat disappointed or underwhelmed. There are many novels, films, and even games, that provide such enthralling experiences, but Skyrim is not one of them.

Skyrim is for the roleplayers, the writers, the tabletop rpgers, the ones looking for a canvas and the opportunity to create something... glorious. In many ways, Skyrim becomes more a toolset than traditional game experience, giving you the means to shape something that's truly YOURS, your vision, your story. Not a story wherein you're inherently important, but a story you actually made. Skyrim strikes the sweet spot, for those people who know WHY their prisoner is on a wagon bound for execution before they've pressed the start button. It captivates the ones who know WHY this Prisoner would sooner side with the Imperials who nearly beheaded him, over the Nords who offered kinship at the chopping block. Skyrim offers skeletons of stories, bare bones affairs, to which you must add the flesh. It's why the world is so vast, it's why the character creation caters to the minutiae, even when you'll spend most of the game looking at the back of your characters head. Some of us know about the childhood hunting accident that caused the scar beneath our character's eye, some of us know why our character would lay down beneath the headsmen's act without a fight.

I'm honestly surprised by Skyrim's success. Most consumers are ill equipped to handle a world where they must provide the lion share of the creative input for their experience. Some balk at the prospect, others, myself included, revel in it. I think we bandy about the term sandbox too often today, in reference to games. Some have forgotten just what the sandbox was all about. You weren't given set pieces, or beautifully scripted lines spouted by perfectly dynamic miniatures. YOU gave that lumpy mound of clumped together sand value, YOU made it a castle, YOU made it the last freehold in the land not destroyed by the mighty sandworms (otherwise known as you left hand), YOU made its defense vital, and meaningful, and necessary. YOU gave it a soul.

Can you recapture that spark, the feverish creativity of simple days and simple joys, Dragonborn?

Your quote is well written, but doesn't really hold weight in the wake of Fallout: New Vegas. There you got a game that allowed you to roleplay just as much as Skyrim, but still allowed for an enthralling story and incredible characters and depth. After coming off of more than 250 hours of New Vegas, Skyrim (while still greatly enjoying it) feels somewhat hollow.

New Vegas had a more consistent story, but it did so by sacrificing exploration. The game world, as a whole, is a lot more limited than Bethesda's titles; your character is essentially sheperded down a linear valley for the first 2/3 of the game, and the non-story locations you visit tend to feel more shallow, with a lesser focus on the subtle backstories that Bethesda likes to cram into every location. You have places like Vault 11, but they felt few and far between. My opinion, of course.

Story and characterization are always going to be subjective, too. One man's rich and compelling character is going to be the most annoying thing on Earth to another. Personally, while I liked the faction leaders and companions in New Vegas, it really felt like all of the other characters were just there to take up space.

I don't know if I would say it sacrificed exploration. It definitely wanted you to see some things before you really cut loose, mainly so it could establish the NCR and the Legion. Personally I thought doing that That said, you were never really restricted. You could always take those other roads if you wanted. They were much more difficult, but they were still options. And yeah while some of the areas were pretty bare bones, when it was good it was better than anything I've seen Bethesda make in any of their games I've played.

And yeah, there were definitely main characters and side characters in Vegas, but even most of the main characters in Skyrim don't live up to the low standards of the side characters in Vegas. Esbern is one of the liveliest characters in the game, and he has less characterization that The King. Your companions have virtually no characterization and are only there to hit stuff and carry your dragon bones.

Give me more people like Cass or Arcade, people with opinions and histories and a stake in the fight.

Maybe that was never the intention behind Skyrim, but it's been shown to be possible, and it's omission is all the more noticeable now.

I understand why the developers wanted to make you take a specific path, but I'm not sure that it was a good thing. Fallout 3 had places that low level characters couldn't go without risking impalement, such as Old Olney, but they were always out of the way and easy to go around. New Vegas, by contrast, throws a deathclaw nest across the middle of the main road of the game, making progress in that direction basically impossible unless you exploit a glitch or severely min/max your character. It's one thing to want to establish a conflict, but it's another thing to block all side-paths with grinning death so that your character can experience your epic story in this ostensibly open-world game.

And like I said, Vault 11 was nice, but I can't really think of many other locations in the game that were as memorable. It felt to me like Obsidian had worked most of the story, realized that they only had a few side buildings, and then said "Screw it" and had interns copy and paste buildings to fill out the map.

Also, in my opinion, Obsidian really suffers from wanting to explain everything to the player, and they lose out on subtlety in the process. They can tell nice things about a setting with characters or computer logs to spell it out for you, but they can't really do it without that. Fallout 3 had a lot of little touches that really fleshed out the game world for me, like finding cherry bombs still lying in the toilets of a private school, or finding a skeleton with a case of beer lying in one of the personal shelters, or finding out that the ex-raider's house contained a teddy bear with a knife stuck through it. This is the sort of thing that New Vegas generally lacked, and, from my perspective, it suffered for it.

I find your nomination of the King to contradict my claim that only the followers and faction leaders in New Vegas were among the best NPCs dubious, considering that he's the leader of a faction, but that's unimportant. Regarding Skyrim, I found most of its side characters to be superior to New Vegas' side characters. Virtually every NPC in Skyrim who isn't a soldier or an always-chaotic-evil (and some who are) possesses a unique, if not necessarily complex character. Talk to all of the stall owners in Riften, then compare them to any of the vendors in New Vegas. Your findings may vary of course, but I find Skyrim superior in this regard.

If you're looking for followers with motivations and backstories, I'd stay away from Lydia or hired mercenaries if that's who you've been using. You already know their motivation for helping you: it's their job. Most of the followers you meet in faction sidequests are pretty well rounded; I'd nominate Onmund or J'Zargo in the College of Winterhold as examples.

 

[Extravagance]

It has gotten to a point, a couple of times, where the utter divorce from the scripted lines and what I've actually done gets a little depressing. People threatening to set the Dark Brotherood on me, for example, when I'm the damn Listener.



I assassinated the Emperor. I robbed the entirity of Solitude and killed a woman on her wedding day. I've infiltrated the stupid Elven magical lot, and I can speak the language of Dragons. And nobody really seems to have noticed. Having said that, I do still love the game, and I get very much caught up in all the sneaky stabby dungeony action and how my character developes. I just sometimes wish I gained abit of recognition for some of it ingame.

 

[Hal10k]

And like I said, Vault 11 was nice, but I can't really think of many other locations in the game that were as memorable. It felt to me like Obsidian had worked most of the story, realized that they only had a few side buildings, and then said "Screw it" and had interns copy and paste buildings to fill out the map.

Also, in my opinion, Obsidian really suffers from wanting to explain everything to the player, and they lose out on subtlety in the process. They can tell nice things about a setting with characters or computer logs to spell it out for you, but they can't really do it without that. Fallout 3 had a lot of little touches that really fleshed out the game world for me, like finding cherry bombs still lying in the toilets of a private school, or finding a skeleton with a case of beer lying in one of the personal shelters, or finding out that the ex-raider's house contained a teddy bear with a knife stuck through it. This is the sort of thing that New Vegas generally lacked, and, from my perspective, it suffered for it.

Maybe it's subjective, but I don't remember any of the places you're referring to. I don't remember much of anything about the wasteland of Fallout 3 except that Megaton makes absolutely no sense and to stay away from Old Olney.

I still remember Vault 11 though. And how going through the sewers near Vegas showed it was filled with NCR Soldiers, ready to invade. I remember going through one of the Vaults and having to decide whether to save the ghouls trapped in a room filling with water, or let them die to prevent the NCR Sharecroppers from inevitably starving. I remember exploring all of Zion tracking down the story of the Ranger. New Vegas was filled with stories.

That's the thing, though. When Obsidian wants you to tell you a story, they are damn well going to make sure that you see that story. All of the stories in New Vegas are out there in the open; walk through the sewers and find the soldiers, walk through the vault and decide whther to dick over the ghouls or dick over everybody, walk through Vault 11 and become sad. Everything I mentioned was the small, subtle bits of storytelling that were hidden in the corners of Fallout 3, something I think New Vegas sorely missed.

I find your nomination of the King to contradict my claim that only the followers and faction leaders in New Vegas were among the best NPCs dubious, considering that he's the leader of a faction, but that's unimportant. Regarding Skyrim, I found most of its side characters to be superior to New Vegas' side characters. Virtually every NPC in Skyrim who isn't a soldier or an always-chaotic-evil (and some who are) possesses a unique, if not necessarily complex character. Talk to all of the stall owners in Riften, then compare them to any of the vendors in New Vegas. Your findings may vary of course, but I find Skyrim superior in this regard.

Was King a faction Leader? I suppose he did lead freeside, apologies. Okay, The First Recon Team in Camp McCarran. All of them had very interesting stories attached to them. What were the vendors in Riften about? I only remember the one who asked about his past.

I was more using the shopkeepers in Riften as an example of how even the game's minor NPCs can be easily distinguishable. First Recon is involved with several quests; of course Obsidian would bother to flesh them out more. But all of the random residents of Freeside are just there to fill space, whereas Skyrim at least bothers to give minor NPCs a few character traits.

But, it's like I said: a good character to one person will seem boring to another. I liked Skyrim's minor NPCs, you didn't think to pay them mind. Let's leave the question on why our opinions diverge on the matter to the philosophers, of which I am not one.

If you're looking for followers with motivations and backstories, I'd stay away from Lydia or hired mercenaries if that's who you've been using. You already know their motivation for helping you: it's their job. Most of the followers you meet in faction sidequests are pretty well rounded; I'd nominate Onmund or J'Zargo in the College of Winterhold as examples.

Yeah, I've definitely liked what I've seen so far of the College of Winterhold characters and questlines, but shouldn't that be the norm, rather than the pleasant exception?

It's pretty much the norm for the factions. The Bard's College is the only one that seemed shallow to me, and it still has one or two interesting moments. It's like the Arena from Oblivion in that regard.