I just uninstalled Skyrim

[Epona]

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Buh?

They're extraordinarily similar, sharing almost all the same virtues and all the same flaws.

Hate Skyrim if that floats your boat. But sold out TES fans? Good grief, people.

Maybe you haven't noticed all the "Oblivion sucked, Skyrim is the best game ever!" posts?

...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.

Why can't you stand Oblivion but like Morrowind and Skyrim?

The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.

It didn't though.

Skyrim has:

- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay

Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.

You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).

I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).

Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.

I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.

So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?

So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.

I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.

Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.

Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.

In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.

Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?

It just feels different.

I could ask you the same thing, why are perks BETTER than simply boosting your skills by 5 points when you level up?

You make it sound like there is no difference but you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't prefer perks.

 

[Epona]

Really, other than Skyrim, I can name around 3 three games that have reasonably epic battles with dragons, both Dragon Age games, and somewhat WoW.

Ok, well I didn't think the dragon fights were epic so...there's nowhere to go from here. Is there something epic about aiming your bow towards the sky as opposed to aiming at an enemy on the ground? Is it just the size of the dragons because I have seen bigger enemies on Gran Pulse.

Dragons in this game are a gimmick. They aren't special and they soon become a random enemy. Special things are usually rare. What if Sephiroth became a standard enemy that showed up in random battles, wouldn't that make him less special?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Look. I don't like Skyrim either. Or the Elder Scrolls at all for that matter. But reading this thread title and OP, all I could think was... why are you sharing this, exactly? I just uninstalled Alpha Protocol. FUCK Alpha Protocol was horrible. I'm not making a goddamn thread about it.

Point is, you're fanbaiting. Very hard to provoke genuine debate and discussion when that's going on.

Did Alpha Protocol have hundreds of threads talking about how awesome it is? No, then it's not really comparable.

...well, okay. That's a given, I 'spose.

 

[Something Amyss]

Dragons in this game are a gimmick.

But evidently, a VERY successful one.

 

[Hal10k]

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Buh?

They're extraordinarily similar, sharing almost all the same virtues and all the same flaws.

Hate Skyrim if that floats your boat. But sold out TES fans? Good grief, people.

Maybe you haven't noticed all the "Oblivion sucked, Skyrim is the best game ever!" posts?

...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.

Why can't you stand Oblivion but like Morrowind and Skyrim?

The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.

It didn't though.

Skyrim has:

- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay

Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.

You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).

I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).

Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.

I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.

So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?

So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.

I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.

Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.

Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.

In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.

Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?

It just feels different.

I could ask you the same thing, why are perks BETTER than simply boosting your skills by 5 points when you level up?

You make it sound like there is no difference but you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't prefer perks.

Aside from the benefits to specialization that I mentioned above, the difference is that getting a perk confers a noticeable bonus. Marginally increasing your attributes isn't going to result in a noticeable difference until you've gone up a few levels. Get a perk, however, and you'll usually immediately realize it. You'll start doing more damage with Sneak Attack Criticals, or get a massive armor bonus since you're an Alteration specialist without any armor, or suddenly be able to cast Expert level Destruction magic without exhausting your entire mana pool, or enter bullet time when using bows. The more noticeable perks results in a greater feeling of accomplishment for leveling, which results in an increased incentive to level up.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Also, enough with the 'so you didn't like it big deal don't make a thread about it'. Shut up.

This is a forum for gaming discussion. I disliked a game and I stated my reasons. I wanted to write this thread because I was frustrated with the game, and after posting it, I felt better. This had led to a discussion.

How about I turn your own weapons against you: if you don't want to read about people having a negative opinion on a game you like, don't click those threads and don't reply. This point is as moot as yours.

Sorry man, the internet doesn't work like that. Hypocrisy is one of the cornerstone of the average poster, along with arrogance, ignorance and egotism.

If you're getting annoyed by all the people quoting you then maybe you should have been a bit more savvy about it instead of simply ranting and expecting a reasonable response. Like begets like.

Also, being a hypocrite never made anyones point more respectable.

There is lots that Skyrim did wrong. You can criticize a lot of games with ease. In fact (broken record mode) it is a lot easier to criticize a game than to look past criticisms and compliment something.

You can come up with more criticisms for your favourite game than compliments for your least favourite game. I can come up with way more criticisms for Skyrim than I can compliment it, even though I think it is one of the better games of 2011 that I played.

That's funny, because whenever i ask Skyrim fanboys to humor me and critisize the game, they have a very hard time coming up with criticism for it. I wonder how that can be?

And when they finally do come up with criticism for it, it's always that they wanted more of it, which isn't really criticism. It's like being asked "What do you dislike about sex" and replying "I don't think i have enough, and I'd like to have more of it".

Now, i obviously just like every other gamer have a lot of games that i enjoy a lot. But i can critisize every single game i enjoy, including the games that I've played in my time that i consider the very best designed ones ever (which doesn't mean those were the ones i enjoyed the most). I'm the type of person who really NEEDS a well designed game to have ultimate fun. Merely basing a game on a great idea/concept isn't enough, and i can critisize the games i didn't enjoy far more than the games i DID enjoy.

.

You see, it's about emotional attachment. People who love a game have a very hard time critisizing it, and people who hate a game have a very hard time complimenting it because those people are emotionally attached. On the other hand, people who are emotionally detached (like me) have no problems doing either. That doesn't mean our opinion is worth more to you than someone else, but emotional detachment helps maintain a less skewered viewpoint.

Spoiler: My criticisms and complaints

*I had to restart my game entirely due to a gamebreaking bug that I completely missed until well after I had overwritten the earliest un-bugged save. 40 hours lost.

*After about a week I got back into the game. Then the PS3 fuck-you-in-the-ass lag hit me after roughly 50 more hours of playing. Started a new character.

*Patch came out and alleviated the worst of the lag for me, but I had invested far too much time in my newest character to go back to the old characters. Realised at a point that I didn't like how I invested my Perks. Started a new character.

3 separate events that caused me to lose over a hundred of hours of play, yet I still came back to the game.

*Generic Plot, cookie cutter characters, sloppy writing, iffy to plainly bad voice acting, too shallow and superficial reasons to emotionally invest in.

*Piss poor intro.

*Serious lack in focus testing or even outsider opinions. Most decisions are obviously made in house, without external input.

*The melee is somewhat unresponsive. I have killed 7 different companions (who I liked tagging along with me) due to the seemingly arbitrary hit detection.

*Stealth is just ridiculously OP and enemy AI in regards to stealth is non existent. Companions always break your infiltration and the AI barely react to their mates getting brutally taken down by an arrow to the face.

*A good 20%-30% of the perks available are virtually useless.

*Saw a pack of wolves kill a dragon. Made me feel far less of a badass.

*Tried to side with Stormcloaks in the Civil war. Game bug prevented me from continuing it past the 2nd quest line. Couldn't even switch sides at that point.

*The broken magical defence (pre 1.3 patch) meant I was been instant killed by other mages with magical attacks that are seemingly impossible to evade.

*One quest seemed to be dead set on killing me. I HAD to take damage in order to complete the quest (involved explosions at close range). Because I hadn't invested in HP the damage inflicted was obviously over 100 points, meaning it killed me with no chance of progressing in that quest.

*NPCs don't vary much from town to town.

*I really can keep going with this, but the point has been made

All in all I nobody can say that Skyrim is polished... or even refined (or balanced). However, I still love the game because:

Spoiler: What makes it enjoyable despite flaws

-I can Role Play effectively. So far I have been a young and ambitious nord adventurer/mercenary, a wizened and humble Breton with a deep understanding of the Arcane and a Strong willed and Honour Bound Nord Warrior with a primal desire. I have plans to play as a downtrodden woodelf thief with dreams of fortune, A bitter Dark Elf Assassin who dreams of normality, A retired imperial battlemage who feels compelled to step in on the War that he has long avoided.

-Taken every point I have said against the combat and stealth system of the game, I can almost entirely forgive it after battling my way through a horde only to confront a mighty foe, after a volley of swings and deflections I finally land the killing blow, lopping off the head of my worthy opponent, all in a satisfying cinematic crescendo. These aren't uncommon, but are still rare enough for the satisfaction to remain.

-I don't Skill grind. I favour a natural progression. If I feel the need to improve I seek training from an expert (and I don't take the money back either). This makes my character feel more human.

-I act on quests based on the urgency of the event in question and my characters moral alignment. This makes every adventure I take vary in terms of my characters involvement in it

-I got lost on multiple occasions in the game, trying to find my way back onto the roads or out of a forest (I don't use the maps that often). In those moments I have encountered numerous things, both random and fixed, that left me in awe. Few games manage this for me.

-Despite the frailty of some of the earlier dragons, I have had some amazing and memorable confrontations in the most incredibly locations in the game. Truly epic stuff.

-Despite the still lacking variety in interactive NPCs, I can still pick out characters who are actually likeable, even deep, if only for a short amount of time.

-The Dungeon designs are great. Despite the re-used textures and designs, I still haven't gone through 2 different dungeons that felt alike.

Regardless of what others have said, I think Bethesda has created a great game. Not because of polish, or production values, or even plot, but because it offers a well realised and ambitious frame for a Role Player. It doesn't guide me down a set path, at no point do I feel constraint and every action I take feels like I'm exercising my own will in this virtual world. By no means did it get it perfectly... at almost every level it could do with improvements, some more so then others.

But the game still stands out to me. Besides other TES games or Fallout 3/New Vegas, there are no other games that fill that spot that Skyrim has created in me. Other games have better stories, better gameplay, better graphics, better overall execution... but for me, nothing is as engrossing as Skyrim. It perfects nothing yet excels at what it aims to do. It is greater then the sum of all its parts.

I appreciate the game for what it is but I'm not blind to it's flaws either. However I like if not love the game as it is and any improvement on the formula will only make me like it more. Do not dismiss it as some sort of psychological affliction... I find that notion grossly offensive, it's also a massive cop out in any topic as you would like keeping picking on the flipside of any point made and imply that it's all in our heads.

Which funnily enough, it all is...

Your not a special person. Critical analyses is very easily attained. The difficulty is tempering your critical eye as to not detract from the overall piece. A fair judgement is made on all it's merits against it's deficiencies. Having a grudge against deficiencies that inhibits your ability to see it's merits makes you unfit to judge. "High standards" means you hold something to a standard that is above average or, more often then not, your idea of perfection. Nothing will ever meet an individuals view on perfection, let alone the masses, so again that makes you unfit to judge. Not to mention the "average" is also entirely subjective (unless you can pull out statistics and documented facts), meaning it's just as unreliable in making a fair judgement on something as it would be if you judged it against perfection.

You're welcome to an opinion, but your opinion is just your interpretations and experience, not mine. You might share it with a thousand other people, but you don't share it with me.

 

[Epona]

Dragons in this game are a gimmick.

But evidently, a VERY successful one.

So was the Wii.

 

[Epona]

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Buh?

They're extraordinarily similar, sharing almost all the same virtues and all the same flaws.

Hate Skyrim if that floats your boat. But sold out TES fans? Good grief, people.

Maybe you haven't noticed all the "Oblivion sucked, Skyrim is the best game ever!" posts?

...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.

Why can't you stand Oblivion but like Morrowind and Skyrim?

The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.

It didn't though.

Skyrim has:

- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay

Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.

You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).

I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).

Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.

I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.

So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?

So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.

I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.

Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.

Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.

In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.

Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?

It just feels different.

I could ask you the same thing, why are perks BETTER than simply boosting your skills by 5 points when you level up?

You make it sound like there is no difference but you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't prefer perks.

Aside from the benefits to specialization that I mentioned above, the difference is that getting a perk confers a noticeable bonus. Marginally increasing your attributes isn't going to result in a noticeable difference until you've gone up a few levels. Get a perk, however, and you'll usually immediately realize it. You'll start doing more damage with Sneak Attack Criticals, or get a massive armor bonus since you're an Alteration specialist without any armor, or suddenly be able to cast Expert level Destruction magic without exhausting your entire mana pool, or enter bullet time when using bows. The more noticeable perks results in a greater feeling of accomplishment for leveling, which results in an increased incentive to level up.

So perks are a "feel good" thing. Ok.

 

[Savagezion]

Secret of Mana comes to mind. Sure, it's a 2D game but it's not turn based. You can say that fighting dragons is unique in Skyrim but can't you say that about any enemy?

Nah, I wouldn't say it about every enemy. It might be true for mammoths or another one but the weight really comes in here because it is fuckin' dragons. I mean seriously, they are legendary in nature. All societies hold a special and unique role for just them as bad asses. The same cannot be said for giants or mammoths or even werewolves. Dragons are probably only paralleled by vampires but dragons are much harder to pull off and not seem stupid. It is very easy to make dragons not come off as intimidating if explored much beyond shock value of "Rawr! Dragon!"
Skyrim explores them and makes them pretty bad ass ancient beings. They managed to maintain the "epicness" in lore. The only real valid criticism is that the mechanics at odds with one another in the game can make the dragons seem too easy to kill. However, as I mentioned earlier, conveniently - and I definitely think coincidentally - the story of you being a dragonborn just happens to make this actually plausible in the sense that you were literally born to kill dragons. I mean, after all it is your birthright to kick their ass.

I mention that only to emphasize the importance of "Dragons!". This is a rare thing that is surprisingly pretty unheard of in the games industry. It's weird I know but that is the first thing I thought of when playing Skyrim and fought my first dragon. The sudden realization, I hadn't ever experienced this legendary and classic scenario before in games.

My characters had fought dragons but I never had fought dragons.

I have fought undead, wolves, tigers/lions, bears, elementals, and even way better giants (SotC).

 

[Hal10k]

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Buh?

They're extraordinarily similar, sharing almost all the same virtues and all the same flaws.

Hate Skyrim if that floats your boat. But sold out TES fans? Good grief, people.

Maybe you haven't noticed all the "Oblivion sucked, Skyrim is the best game ever!" posts?

...apart from the fact that Oblivion is one of 4 Elder Scrolls games that came before Skyrim? It lived up to and blew apart my expectations, as a person who loved Morrowind, likes Daggerfall and can't stand Oblivion.

Why can't you stand Oblivion but like Morrowind and Skyrim?

The common sentiments that I have seen point out the somewhat generic environment design, copy-and-paste locations, comically bad voice acting, the flawed leveling system, and the fact that all of the NPCs looked like potatoes. Many people who disliked Oblivion for these reasons felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns well.

It didn't though.

Skyrim has:

- generic environment design (ie, mountains and snow vs forests)
- copy and paste locations
- bad voice acting and comic dialog (ie, the arrow to the knee and the horrific german accent)
- the level scaling system is better but not by much
- The NPC's do look better but that hardly helps gameplay

Like I said, people felt that Skyrim addressed these concerns. Something that feels unique or interesting to one person will feel generic or boring to another. Different people take up different cues from their surroundings. The people who are complimenting Skyrim over Oblivion are the ones who saw positive differences in the game.

You didn't answer my a question then. I ask why YOU like Morrowind and Skyrim and not Oblivion. I know what every one else is saying and I think none of it rings true (as I pointed out with bullet points).

I think Skyrim is worse because the leveling system has been reduced to three attributes and perks. The perks being far more important than your skills (you can have a high skill level in something but it not be as good as having a low skill level plus a perk).

Don't take my words the wrong way: I liked Oblivion. Not as much as I liked Morrowind, and I'm still reserving judgement on Skyrim until I can reflect upon it more in hindsight, but I still thought Oblivion was really good, especially when you take Shivering Isles into account. It still had flaws, though, and the reason Skyrim has garnered so much praise is that many people feel it addresses those flaws. This may not ring true to you, but it does for many people. And if somebody says "I enjoyed Skyrim's locations more than Oblivion's" or "I liked the voice acting in Skyrim more than Oblivion", you can't really tell them that they're wrong.

I'm not entirely sure how we segued into a discussion of the leveling system, but I prefer the perk system to the previous game's linear stat progressions. It allows for greater specialization, even if you've managed to max out your stats, and makes for immediate, noticeable benefits to leveling, as opposed to "You can swing your sword incrementally faster". It seems like a natural extension of Oblivion's "You can cast Expert Level Destruction magic now" stuff, at least in that regard.

So you like the perks better, what did you think of Morrowinds leveling system? Better yet, what did you like about Morrowind that Oblivion didn't have but Skyrim did?

So you understand where these questions are coming from, let me explain my POV. Oblivion had the same skill level system as Morrowind, just fewer skills but still plenty. Oblivion had the attributes that could be directly altered just like Morrowind. Oblivion had the same means of leveling your skills (ie, use them to level them). So under the hood, Oblivion and Morrowind are more similar to each they other than either is to Skyrim. In fact, on the Bethesda forums, one guy told me that Skyrim is not an RPG at all. I have to to agree that it is less RPG than previous TES games.

I wasn't much of a fan of Morrowind's leveling system either- It was essentially the same as Oblivion's, except it made everything take longer. What I loved about Morrowind was the setting. You had cities constructed underneath the shells of ancient insects, Daedric temples with twisted architecture, steampunk Dwemer ruins, Lovecraftian cattle, and plains choked with volcanic ash, and much more. And more importantly, it all seemed to fit together. Everything from the architecture to the environment design to the costume design went together to create a sense of place that Oblivion just lacked for me. Oblivion just felt artificial to me. It felt like somebody had taken figures from a D&D board game and shaken them loose upon the table. The only locations that felt interesting were the Deadlands, and we all know the problems that the Oblivion Gates had. Skyrim goes a long way towards recapturing the feeling of uniqueness and realism that Morrowind had for me- it may not be as utterly alien as Morrowind, but it's unique enough to make me want to explore in a way Oblivion didn't.

Now, "RPG" is, by necessity, a rather vague genre. I seem to recall seeing many threads recently on the definition of the term where everybody walks in with a different definition and subsequently walks out angry. To me, thinking in terms of stats, an RPG has to force the player to specialize. Something that will give the player all available benefits given enough time, such as Call of Duty's multiplayer, is not an RPG. But something that forces the player to adopt a particular playstyle as they level up, and will actually play differently if they pick another playstyle, is an RPG. In this way, I think Skyrim is even more of an RPG than any of the previous games. In Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Oblivion, you can become the undisputed master of all available skills given enough time. There isn't always a cap, but there's always a point where leveling up any further just becomes redundant. At that point, you can adopt pretty much any playstyle and expect the same amount of success. But in Skyrim, the limited number of perks forces the player to choose a particular playstyle. Even if you level up all of your skills to 100, you're going to be most effective with your preferred playstyle- the one you've put the most perks into.

Well, if you didn't like the leveling system of Morrowind then I can't really relate to your opinion at all. In Morrowind and Oblivion leveling up meant something more than "here, have a brightly colored cookie", it meant you were taking control of the development of your character. You always were, with every move you made but the level up was the point where it paid off.

In case anyone doesn't understand. Brightly colored cookies = perks.

Who says perks don't give you control over your character? Why is "You hit 2% harder with axes now" inherently superior to "You hit 2% harder with one-handed weapons now, plus you can choose from a range of permanent bonuses to your stats if you so wish"?

It just feels different.

I could ask you the same thing, why are perks BETTER than simply boosting your skills by 5 points when you level up?

You make it sound like there is no difference but you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't prefer perks.

Aside from the benefits to specialization that I mentioned above, the difference is that getting a perk confers a noticeable bonus. Marginally increasing your attributes isn't going to result in a noticeable difference until you've gone up a few levels. Get a perk, however, and you'll usually immediately realize it. You'll start doing more damage with Sneak Attack Criticals, or get a massive armor bonus since you're an Alteration specialist without any armor, or suddenly be able to cast Expert level Destruction magic without exhausting your entire mana pool, or enter bullet time when using bows. The more noticeable perks results in a greater feeling of accomplishment for leveling, which results in an increased incentive to level up.

So perks are a "feel good" thing. Ok.

If a game doesn't "feel good", I advise you to stop playing.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Yep, shit suxx, as does about any other Bethesda Studios game that I played. Bad story, broken gameplay (leveling system, AI, UI, scaling etc.), lifeless world, boring quests and NPCs... too much random crap and endlessly repeating samey dungeons and areas to "hike around" in, yep it's a Bethesda game alright.

They also keep remaking that one game for near to 20 years now...

Spoiler: spoiled for space

Ironic considering the biggest criticism made by fans against Bethesda is that they change too much between titles.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

On a somewhat related note, i never actually uninstall games, even if i'm not playing them or haven't played them for a while. I've always found the notion of "uninstall as soon as displeased or disinterested" to be incredibly childish and pedantic, even if it is to save hard drive space. But then i'm someone who always thinks "Well, what if i want to play it later?"

Same here, both in how I think about uninstalling the moment you're done to the thought process about the people who do it.
The only times I've ever uninstalled games have been when my HDD is getting too full and I need to free up some space. And now that hard drives are continually holding more while getting cheaper, I think the last time that happened was several years ago.

But anyway, OT: The bugs are there, yes. While I've luckily only had the funny bugs so far (e.g. a citizen swimming through the air in Dawnstar), I still play it today. And at least for those on PC's, further patches will help get rid of more and more of these bugs. Meanwhile, I guess I'll hope that my luck holds out, but bugs (for the most part) have never annoyed me in any game anyway, except for the extreme game-breaking ones.

I like the detail they put in to how NPC's treat you (e.g. by race, while my Argonian warrior was welcomed heartily by another Argonian on the docks in Winterhold, my current Khajiit archer is told that they don't see many of my kind there, and that maybe it's better if I just leave). I do enjoy the guards updating what they say to you based on your deeds (good deeds, or otherwise >_> ). Details are far from what I hold to be important in a game, but when they're there, I am a fan of the details. So I enjoy all that, at least.

I've had no problems with the leveling system in Skyrim so far (I quite like it, really), so I'm not sure where some of the complaints for that have come from...

The world as a whole is... beautiful. The first character I made, on his first trip to The Throat Of The World, was lucky enough to be climbing just as the sun was rising over the distant mountains. I looked at the world below, feeling the morning's first rays of sunshine, and I realised how much work they must have put in to this land we're allowed to explore.
Now of course, graphics are very far from what I hold to be important in a game, but I only get a couple games a year (I still play games ranging from TF2 to the old Duke Nukem 3D quite often), so it's just nice to see this too.

I also love how they've done the quests. They're set up to seem important, but there's no time limit on doing them. You can get hundreds of quests and only start crossing them off once your quest log is just a blur of different quest lines, or you can do each quest the moment they're given to you. It's up to you, not some timer. And once again, I like that.

EDIT: Ooh! Ooh! Also, they did the wings right!
Seriously, animals with wings do not also have 4 legs/other limbs. The wings are the front legs. This has brought me much rage over the years from various sources (dragons in movies or games, humans or other animals who grew wings, etc). Wings do not grow out of the back of your back ffs, they grow out of the same place that arms would. So the fact that Skyrim made its dragons with wings that it uses as arms when it lands (e.g. like bats) made me happy, too. This is entirely just a thing for me, I understand that not many others would care about this. But I do, so once again, it's nice that someone finally got this detail right.

I still need some coffee to wake myself up (so I'm sure I missed some important points), but I hope that gives any of the naysayers some reasons for why people might like it. ^_^

tl;dr: I liked it, and still play it. I only got it for Christmas, so I've "only" been playing it for almost a month, but I can't really see myself stopping any time soon.

EDIT: Just in case someone got this idea from my post, no, I do not think that it's #1 game material, because there are better games out there (in my opinion, at least). This post was just for those people who were saying that it's downright bad, and that those who like it apparently can't come up with any reasons for why they like it.
So I offered some reasons as to why I like it. That's all.

 

[Epona]

Secret of Mana comes to mind. Sure, it's a 2D game but it's not turn based. You can say that fighting dragons is unique in Skyrim but can't you say that about any enemy?

Skyrim explores them and makes them pretty bad ass ancient beings. They managed to maintain the "epicness" in lore. The only real valid criticism is that the mechanics at odds with one another in the game can make the dragons seem too easy to kill. However, as I mentioned earlier, conveniently - and I definitely think coincidentally - the story of you being a dragonborn just happens to make this actually plausible in the sense that you were literally born to kill dragons. I mean, after all it is your birthright to kick their ass.

Well, every RPG I've played has you set as a hero to complete a task, usually to save the world from the ultimate evil. Let's take Chrono Trigger for example. You, and your party, are in the game for one major reason, to save the world from Lavos. Lavos is epic, he landed on the planet 65 Million years before and grew to this enormous threat. You have to travel through time and fight all kinds of enemies until you finally meet up with Lavos and destroy him. All of that just seems more epic than fighting dragons in Skyrim.

That sounds more epic to me than existing just to kill dragons. I'm sorry, I just can't get excited about killing dragons.

 

[Bomberman4000]

I don't get why people who don't like Skyrim go out of their way to try to convert people who do. What it sounds like to me is that people who don't like Skyrim can't accept that they're in the minority so they ***** and complain about it to try and get more people on their side, OR they ***** and moan because they feel it's cooler to be on the outside of the majority on an issue.

It's been said before that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because you're the most stubborn about arguing about it doesn't make you right. "Good" is a relative term. "Perfect" is a relative term. "Quality" is a relative term. Reviews and everything that goes in them are all subjective. It's fine to disagree, but with what I've been reading so far it just sounds like a lot of complaining because something is popular that you don't think should be.

 

[DRes82]

"whine whine whine I don't like Skyrim"

Ok, you don't like Skyrim. What exactly is the discussion value of this? Who cares what you don't like? Your post isn't constructive or technical. You don't give any valuable insight into why a prospective player should buy this game or not. You just piss and moan about how you don't like the game.

Also....

EDIT: Also, enough with the 'so you didn't like it big deal don't make a thread about it'. Shut up.

Why the hell should they shut up about it? That's pretty much the only worthwhile thing to be said in response to such an obvious attempt to garner negative attention.

A bit of advice: If you're going to call out other forum members on not posting worthwhile responses, it helps greatly to first post something worth responding to.

I'm not quite sure what direction this thread was supposed to go, but I'll go ahead and give my opinion of Skyrim. Its a technically (taking into account the huge scope of the game) and graphically proficient production. The best in its genre, easily. Not everyone enjoys this type of game, but its definitely not 'niche'. If you're thinking of buying it, I suggest making sure that you enjoy a LOT of freedom and exploration in your gaming experience and less emphasis on non player character development or NPC to PC relationship. Otherwise, you might puke bile on gaming forums about how awful the game is and how it ruined your life. If you're set on a linear style of gameplay or where you have a lot of character development and interaction, Skyrim is decidedly not for you.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

snip

Heh, I never even thought about it like that... looking at my games list I still have Black and White 2 installed (played it something like 3 years ago) and I hate that game.

 

[Duffeknol]

And I feel nothing.

This game literally has been one of the most miserable gaming experiences of my life. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to play it a few days before it came out (the PS3 version was already being sold here, and my friend had bought it). I saw the preposterously bad NPC-character animations, the same weightless ragdoll physics, the same pointless and consequence-free gameplay and the same amount of bugs as Oblivion's. I went on this forum to downplay people's INSANE expectations, and got 10+ pages of people calling me a troll and flaming me to death.

From that day forward, I could only see the game's flaws. I couldn't enjoy it. I played through the main story once, did pretty much everything else with another character, but all I felt throughout playing the game was hatred. Nothing I did mattered, because the only consequence ANY of your actions have is sometimes hearing a guard say one fucking other line than 'arrow to the knee'. Now, some people play an Elder Scrolls game as some kind of playground. They don't care. They just download mods and dick around in the world for hundreds of hours, throwing chickens at bystanders and whatnot. Fine. Other people would like an immersive RPG experience, which Bethesda is still unable to provide in any way, since every NPC still acts like a lobotomized robot.

I then proceeded to download the child killing mod and the 'set every NPC to non-essential' mod, since I wanted to be able to go Morrowind on the game's ass. Cause, you have to admit, setting pretty much half of the game's NPCs to essential was just bullshit. I mean, for fuck's sakes, you couldn't even kill most of the beggars. I then literally killed off all of Skyrim's population systematically. This helped deal with my frustration with them not acting like proper NPCs. At least when they were dead they didn't annoy me. But now I'm done, and the game is gone.

I hope I forget about Skyrim, the biggest load of shit I have ever had on my harddrive.

EDIT: Also, enough with the 'so you didn't like it big deal don't make a thread about it'. Shut up.

This is a forum for gaming discussion. I disliked a game and I stated my reasons. I wanted to write this thread because I was frustrated with the game, and after posting it, I felt better. This had led to a discussion.

How about I turn your own weapons against you: if you don't want to read about people having a negative opinion on a game you like, don't click those threads and don't reply. This point is as moot as yours.

I'm not telling you that if you like this game you are wrong, dumb, or anything along those lines. I didn't like this game because of above reasons. If you liked it, I'm happy for you, since you're having fun. If you read more into this post and feel personally attacked, lay off the caffeine.

I just read everything (including the edit) and all I can say is this:

This isn't a discussion, this is just you bitching about a popular game that quite a few people around here like. I don't see the point of this other than attention whoring. Please, realize that no one actually cares about threads like these and understand that what I type is what other people had already typed and will continue to type.

In Short: "If you wanna go *****, ***** somewhere else."

EDIT: Please note that this is a copy/paste response to constant "hate" game threads. Even if I feel the same about [Insert Game Here] I will post the same exact thing. Enjoy your day.

Love,

Ponyholder.

"This isn't a discussion" - I've seen plenty of discussion so far, dude.

"No one cares about threads like these" - Thread is seven pages.

 

[karoliso]

The unscripted-ness of the game is main reason I find it so awesome. I like having a few games where I'm not lead on through the dance, but instead I can make my own dance and random dancers barge in on occasion where I have to change the steps in my dance.

If you think that Skyrim shines in the area of "unscripted-ness" I suggest you try Dwarf Fortress. Compared to DF Skyrim would be considered a game on rails.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

.
I'm not quite sure what direction this thread was supposed to go, but I'll go ahead and give my opinion of Skyrim. Its a technically (taking into account the huge scope of the game) and graphically proficient production. The best in its genre, easily. Not everyone enjoys this type of game, but its definitely not 'niche'. If you're thinking of buying it, I suggest making sure that you enjoy a LOT of freedom and exploration in your gaming experience and less emphasis on non player character development or NPC to PC relationship. Otherwise, you might puke bile on gaming forums about how awful the game is and how it ruined your life. If you're set on a linear style of gameplay or where you have a lot of character development and interaction, Skyrim is decidedly not for you.

Just a little nitpick, but the 2 play styles aren't mutually exclusive. I love a good interactive narrative, intense and focused gameplay and well realised linear designs as much as the next guy, but I still adore Skyrim.

Shame they never release a trial version, if it was at all possible to make one.

 

[Duffeknol]

Bethesda games are to RPGs what Call of Duty games are to Shooters (overhyped, samey and millions of people playing it and swearing its teh best game evah)...

Heh, never thought of it this way.