I just uninstalled Skyrim

[Joccaren]

Also, why is the fact that TLR is on two discs considered a selling point? Because Skyrim is still bigger, and I don't need to get up every ten minutes to switch the disc.

Two disks means more content. Skyrim had a lot of stuff compressed so it could fit on one disk, sacrificing quality so that console users wouldn't have to swap disks. From what I gather, TLR did not do this, and kept quality, and told console users to suck it up and use two disks.

Like I said, I haven't experienced many of Skyrim's so-called legions of glitches (it's slowed down twice, both when entering the minor cities in the peak hours), so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on that count. I personally don't think bugs should be counted against any game unless they a) occur consistently (almost every single person who plays), and b) make the game truly unplayable.

There are some bugs that occur in every single game, if you do things in a certain order. And that is a lot of the problem. Skyrim is an open ended game that you have to play a lot of it in a certain order for, or else bugs shaft you into not being able to do things.
The game actively discourages exploring, and encourages looking for random NPCs to give you a quest to explore.
A couple of cases in point:
-Whilst on the quest to become Thane of Riften, you need to go clear some bandits out of a cave. If you explored that cave and killed the bandits beforehand, you are unable to complete that quest.
-There is a quest that asks you to get a book. Forgotten what it was called now. That book can be found in a couple of places, but it wants you to get it from one specific chest. If you went to the location that chest is at beforehand and looted the book then, the quest is unfinishable as it keeps telling you to get the book from that chest.
-Possibly fixed in the last patch, I'll have to check, but Thane of Riften again, you talk to the Jarl and she says to buy a house. You buy a house, but decide to check in and take a look around before you return to the Jarl. The Jarl no longer has any conversation options for Thane of Riften, and you are left with yet another unfinishable quest.

This sort of stuff happens in numerous quests all across Skyrim. You must get the quest first, then you can go explore the area. Considering the only focus of Skyrim is exploring as you want to, that's pretty poor.

Also, game breaking bugs; PS3. That's bad. Literally whole game breaking. Not even only main story breaking like a glitch that a lot of people get on the PC (Where Esbern finishes his dialogue when you first meet him in 0.5 seconds and doesn't open the door), but whole game breaking.

OT: I agree with you OP, but I'm keeping it for massive battles thanks to console commands for me to watch. The game is all round meh, and its only redeeming feature is that it has a large world. Great in theory, but more needed to be done with the world for it to hold my attention.

 

[karoliso]

compared to DF, skyrim is a much better GAME

I would not agree with that. Far from it. from a purely mechanical perspective DF is superior GAME. And I'm not talking about petty dressing over game mecahnics like story, visuals, etc. What are Skyrims mecahnics? spamming mouse one in front of a monster until it falls down.

Yes,that's all you do in skyrim, just spamming left-click in front of one monster. no dodging, no blocking, no power attacks, no group battles, no spells, no archery, no changing weapons, no dual wielding, no sneaking, no using consumables, no positioning, no funnelling, no moving, nothing. just you, one monster, and the basic attack.

clearly, all you need is the left mouse button for skyrim because NONE of those other things ever happen. Clearly DF the masochist micro-manager's wet dream, where every thing has to be accounted for by you because the AI is literally suicidal, is a better game mechanically.

it's also convenient where you left out at minimum 3 categories where skyrim wins, story, visuals, playability. What's your next category? clearly DF is better if you only take into account the number of dwarves?

EDIT: oh shit, I forgot, no shouts or other powers.

What I find most important in a game is the gameplay which for me was not at all compelling in Skyrim. Do you expect a B grade story and repetitive voice acting when playing Tetris? No, you want gameplay. Sure having context and what not is great but by no means is it a make or break for a video game. Once you grasp all the patterns in a given video game you cease to feed your brain information and you get bored. Sure the exploration delivers more information to be processed but the combat stops because the patterns are very few.

 

[Darkmantle]

compared to DF, skyrim is a much better GAME

I would not agree with that. Far from it. from a purely mechanical perspective DF is superior GAME. And I'm not talking about petty dressing over game mecahnics like story, visuals, etc. What are Skyrims mecahnics? spamming mouse one in front of a monster until it falls down.

Yes,that's all you do in skyrim, just spamming left-click in front of one monster. no dodging, no blocking, no power attacks, no group battles, no spells, no archery, no changing weapons, no dual wielding, no sneaking, no using consumables, no positioning, no funnelling, no moving, nothing. just you, one monster, and the basic attack.

clearly, all you need is the left mouse button for skyrim because NONE of those other things ever happen. Clearly DF the masochist micro-manager's wet dream, where every thing has to be accounted for by you because the AI is literally suicidal, is a better game mechanically.

it's also convenient where you left out at minimum 3 categories where skyrim wins, story, visuals, playability. What's your next category? clearly DF is better if you only take into account the number of dwarves?

EDIT: oh shit, I forgot, no shouts or other powers.

What I find the most important in a game is the gameplay. Do you expect a B grade story and repetitive voice acting when playing Tetris? No, you want gameplay. Sure having context and what not is great but by no means is it a make or break for a video game.

now now, don't change the subject. we weren't talking about gameplay vs story, that was covered in "No Right Answer" on this site. you said that the only mechanic in skyrim was spam left click on one monster in front of you. I may have been sarcastic, but I certainly outlined how you were clearly wrong, and then went further to put down DFs gameplay mechanic, namely the micro managing bit. I mentioned the other categories, but I never said which was more important. what I did do, is refute your silly assertion that, again, all you do is left click on one monster in skyrim. On this note, doing more things does not make a game better, in DFs case, it just makes it obtuse. You don't go into tetris expecting to have to manually program each and every move lest the game crash on you.

EDIT: please, add an edit tag, I almost missed the edit after I posted. but again, the gameplay in DF is for one type of person, masochist micro-managers.

 

[Darkmantle]

misclick doublepost.

 

[karoliso]

What I find the most important in a game is the gameplay. Do you expect a B grade story and repetitive voice acting when playing Tetris? No, you want gameplay. Sure having context and what not is great but by no means is it a make or break for a video game.

now now, don't change the subject. we weren't talking about gameplay vs story, that was covered in "No Right Answer" on this site. you said that the only mechanic in skyrim was spam left click on one monster in front of you. I may have been sarcastic, but I certainly outlined how you were clearly wrong, and then went further to put down DFs gameplay mechanic, namely the micro managing bit. I mentioned the other categories, but I never said which was more important. what I did do, is refute your silly assertion that, again, all you do is left click on one monster in skyrim. On this note, doing more things does not make a game better, in DFs case, it just makes it obtuse. You don't go into tetris expecting to have to manually program each and every move lest the game crash on you.

You've been sarcastic in your post and I have been over-exaggerating. DF's problem is accessibility while Skyrim's problem is shallowness. But in the long run I prefer the ones with a lot of depth even if the game is a pain to learn.

 

[Epona]

Two disks means more content. Skyrim had a lot of stuff compressed so it could fit on one disk, sacrificing quality so that console users wouldn't have to swap disks. From what I gather, TLR did not do this, and kept quality, and told console users to suck it up and use two disks.

You only had to change the disc once, that was when you were done with disc 1. It certainly wasn't a case of changing the discs back and forth. One game that did that was Riven but that was in the 90's. Never had any other game do that.

 

[Lyri]

I just need better quests. Once I have better quests, I will love the game. Without good quests, playing it feels pointless.

This is the very reason I stopped playing Skyrim, I just can't handle how atrocious the quests are.

I remember quests in Morrowind and having to work towards becoming a powerful Arch Mage of the Mages guild, I was even made to pick flora and fauna.
I did not take a walk in the basement and then in a dungeon only to come out all knowing and powerful from a days work, whilst the quest itself was interesting that should not have been the grand sum of the chain.

Every faction in Skyrim's quest system suffers from the same disease.

 

[Darkmantle]

compared to DF, skyrim is a much better GAME

I would not agree with that. Far from it. from a purely mechanical perspective DF is superior GAME. And I'm not talking about petty dressing over game mecahnics like story, visuals, etc. What are Skyrims mecahnics? spamming mouse one in front of a monster until it falls down.

Yes,that's all you do in skyrim, just spamming left-click in front of one monster. no dodging, no blocking, no power attacks, no group battles, no spells, no archery, no changing weapons, no dual wielding, no sneaking, no using consumables, no positioning, no funnelling, no moving, nothing. just you, one monster, and the basic attack.

clearly, all you need is the left mouse button for skyrim because NONE of those other things ever happen. Clearly DF the masochist micro-manager's wet dream, where every thing has to be accounted for by you because the AI is literally suicidal, is a better game mechanically.

it's also convenient where you left out at minimum 3 categories where skyrim wins, story, visuals, playability. What's your next category? clearly DF is better if you only take into account the number of dwarves?

EDIT: oh shit, I forgot, no shouts or other powers.

What I find the most important in a game is the gameplay. Do you expect a B grade story and repetitive voice acting when playing Tetris? No, you want gameplay. Sure having context and what not is great but by no means is it a make or break for a video game.

now now, don't change the subject. we weren't talking about gameplay vs story, that was covered in "No Right Answer" on this site. you said that the only mechanic in skyrim was spam left click on one monster in front of you. I may have been sarcastic, but I certainly outlined how you were clearly wrong, and then went further to put down DFs gameplay mechanic, namely the micro managing bit. I mentioned the other categories, but I never said which was more important. what I did do, is refute your silly assertion that, again, all you do is left click on one monster in skyrim. On this note, doing more things does not make a game better, in DFs case, it just makes it obtuse. You don't go into tetris expecting to have to manually program each and every move lest the game crash on you.

You've been sarcastic in your post and I have been over-exaggerating. DF's problem is accessibility while Skyrim's problem is shallowness.

Thing is skyrim's shallowness problems are nothing compared to DFs accessibility problems. hell, skyrim's more deep than most games lately.

 

[karoliso]

You've been sarcastic in your post and I have been over-exaggerating. DF's problem is accessibility while Skyrim's problem is shallowness.

Thing is skyrim's shallowness problems are nothing compared to DFs accessibility problems. hell, skyrim's more deep than most games lately.

Yes, I am inclined to agree on that one. Still, saying that it's deeper than most modern games is not a high criteria when it's possible to find old games and play them. Yet Skyrim still gets unreal praise.

 

[BaronUberstein]

This is the phenomena of cognitive dissonance.

OP, I shed manly tears for you, enduring the way you did. I played Skyrim for 6 hours to see what the hype was all about. When I realized the combat was just as shitty as the previous games, I wanted to stop, but I continued on until the 6 hour mark before I couldn't take it anymore.

Bethesda produces a piece of shit and people praise it like the next coming. What disturbs me the most is looking back at posts and reviews just after the release that give the game nothing but unwithering praise.

Now, buy yourself Dark Souls and immerse yourself in a world of enjoyable pain.

But...what about us to genuinely like the game? I would hardly call it a peice of shit, because it's fun for me! I enjoy killing dragons, firing arrows poisoned with Fury into a crowd, walking across the land and arriving in town with a pile of wolf furs. Sometimes it's funny when I play a character one way, only to get a message from a friend saying they have to meet me an hour early. I decided to finish the mission, but is there time for a sneaky attack on that bandit fort? Nope, time to charge and see what happens!

Everyone has different tastes, maybe mine are unrefined or unsophisticated, but I enjoy Skyrim. I admit I don't play it nearly as much as I used too, but that happens to me with most games. I admit, I wouldn't call Skyrim a RPG, as you can't really play a role in a world that doesn't respond to your choices beyond a bit of dialog here and there, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun for some of us. If I want to RP, I play a tabletop game where there's a physical GM creating the world as I go.

 

[T8B95]

1) I am chilled. You can't determine my tone from text.

2) We aren't talking game players here, we are talking about game reviewers. They are supposed to be objective.

3) You've heard of YouTube? You don't need the PS3 version to see how bad the lag is. YOu could look it up, here's an example to get you started. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_2Oq87TAQ

4) I had the PS3 version, traded it in for the PC version, it really is that bad and my PS3 was less than a month old at the time.

5) I never called them lazy or incompetent but are you saying it's ok not to mention the bugs in reviews because Bethesda will patch it? Every company patches their games so if framerate issues aren't ok for SE, they aren't ok for Bethesda either.

1) When you use CAPSLOCK, it tends to give the impression that you're yelling. Seeing as you've kept a relatively civil tone throughout the rest of the conversation, it makes me think that you're yelling. Hence, me asking you to chill.

2) Allow me to provide an example of an objective review:
http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml
There are no true objective reviews, of anything. As soon as you have an opinion, it is subjective.

Also, as I have said repeatedly, lots of reviewers noticed and referenced the bugs. They just thought, like I do, that the game's virtues make up for its flaws.

3&4) Like I said, I haven't played the PS3 version. I play mainly on the 360, and I've also seen it played on the PC. I have no opinion on the deficincies of the PS3 version, so I won't comment and make myself look foolish.

5) I thought you had called them lazy, or bad devs, or something of that calibre. If you didn't, I apologize for the accusation. I'm not saying that bugs are okay, exactly, just that they have to be taken in context of the game that they're seen in.

 

[Darkmantle]

I just need better quests. Once I have better quests, I will love the game. Without good quests, playing it feels pointless.

This is the very reason I stopped playing Skyrim, I just can't handle how atrocious the quests are.

I remember quests in Morrowind and having to work towards becoming a powerful Arch Mage of the Mages guild, I was even made to pick flora and fauna.
I did not take a walk in the basement and then in a dungeon only to come out all knowing and powerful from a days work, whilst the quest itself was interesting that should not have been the grand sum of the chain.

Every faction in Skyrim's quest system suffers from the same disease.

That's one of my problems with skyrim too actually, the guild quest chains are WAAAYYY too short.

 

[T8B95]

Also, why is the fact that TLR is on two discs considered a selling point? Because Skyrim is still bigger, and I don't need to get up every ten minutes to switch the disc.

Two disks means more content. Skyrim had a lot of stuff compressed so it could fit on one disk, sacrificing quality so that console users wouldn't have to swap disks. From what I gather, TLR did not do this, and kept quality, and told console users to suck it up and use two disks.

Like I said, I haven't experienced many of Skyrim's so-called legions of glitches (it's slowed down twice, both when entering the minor cities in the peak hours), so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on that count. I personally don't think bugs should be counted against any game unless they a) occur consistently (almost every single person who plays), and b) make the game truly unplayable.

There are some bugs that occur in every single game, if you do things in a certain order. And that is a lot of the problem. Skyrim is an open ended game that you have to play a lot of it in a certain order for, or else bugs shaft you into not being able to do things.
The game actively discourages exploring, and encourages looking for random NPCs to give you a quest to explore.
A couple of cases in point:
-Whilst on the quest to become Thane of Riften, you need to go clear some bandits out of a cave. If you explored that cave and killed the bandits beforehand, you are unable to complete that quest.
-There is a quest that asks you to get a book. Forgotten what it was called now. That book can be found in a couple of places, but it wants you to get it from one specific chest. If you went to the location that chest is at beforehand and looted the book then, the quest is unfinishable as it keeps telling you to get the book from that chest.
-Possibly fixed in the last patch, I'll have to check, but Thane of Riften again, you talk to the Jarl and she says to buy a house. You buy a house, but decide to check in and take a look around before you return to the Jarl. The Jarl no longer has any conversation options for Thane of Riften, and you are left with yet another unfinishable quest.

This sort of stuff happens in numerous quests all across Skyrim. You must get the quest first, then you can go explore the area. Considering the only focus of Skyrim is exploring as you want to, that's pretty poor.

Also, game breaking bugs; PS3. That's bad. Literally whole game breaking. Not even only main story breaking like a glitch that a lot of people get on the PC (Where Esbern finishes his dialogue when you first meet him in 0.5 seconds and doesn't open the door), but whole game breaking.

OT: I agree with you OP, but I'm keeping it for massive battles thanks to console commands for me to watch. The game is all round meh, and its only redeeming feature is that it has a large world. Great in theory, but more needed to be done with the world for it to hold my attention.

I'm torn; I disagree with the content of your post, yet I am enthralled by your avatar. I will compromise by calling this one even.

 

[ChiliNoMore]

i was starting to feel i was the only one who didn't like it..
i mean, it would be a great game if it was the first of the series, but as a oblivion sucessor it lacks a lot in quality.

boring in every way, dull combat, quests that don't link with anything, shallow RPG interface and characters.

from all the hype i saw i thought this was going to be an awesome game, but it's just more of the same, won't recommend it if you did like the other games from TES saga.

i would rate it with a 4/10 if compared with it's precessors and a 7.5/10 if it was the first one..

(small edit: for a really imersive game try risen, oblivion, two worlds II or fallout 3..)

 

[Epona]

1) I am chilled. You can't determine my tone from text.

2) We aren't talking game players here, we are talking about game reviewers. They are supposed to be objective.

3) You've heard of YouTube? You don't need the PS3 version to see how bad the lag is. YOu could look it up, here's an example to get you started. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_2Oq87TAQ

4) I had the PS3 version, traded it in for the PC version, it really is that bad and my PS3 was less than a month old at the time.

5) I never called them lazy or incompetent but are you saying it's ok not to mention the bugs in reviews because Bethesda will patch it? Every company patches their games so if framerate issues aren't ok for SE, they aren't ok for Bethesda either.

1) When you use CAPSLOCK, it tends to give the impression that you're yelling. Seeing as you've kept a relatively civil tone throughout the rest of the conversation, it makes me think that you're yelling. Hence, me asking you to chill.

2) Allow me to provide an example of an objective review:
http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml
There are no true objective reviews, of anything. As soon as you have an opinion, it is subjective.

Also, as I have said repeatedly, lots of reviewers noticed and referenced the bugs. They just thought, like I do, that the game's virtues make up for its flaws.

3&4) Like I said, I haven't played the PS3 version. I play mainly on the 360, and I've also seen it played on the PC. I have no opinion on the deficincies of the PS3 version, so I won't comment and make myself look foolish.

5) I thought you had called them lazy, or bad devs, or something of that calibre. If you didn't, I apologize for the accusation. I'm not saying that bugs are okay, exactly, just that they have to be taken in context of the game that they're seen in.

1) Fair enough

2) Ok, reviewers should ATTEMPT to be objective. Framerate issues that are very noticeable are a bad thing and a reviewer who wasn't blinded by hype would NOT have turned the other cheek for Skyrim.

3) I provide a YouTube video and you could have found your own instead of/in addition to that and you still can't develop an opinion. I guess you think I am lying to you and the videos are doctored.

5) No, bugs don't have to be taken in context. It's like saying "Well since this deep freeze is so big, you can't expect it to reach freezing temps".

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

I just need better quests. Once I have better quests, I will love the game. Without good quests, playing it feels pointless.

I was feeling the same way...then I hit the "Hangover" quest, as I call it. Did you play that one? I was just going along: "oh, another fetch quest, another hideout full of bandits I need to slaughter, anoth...wait, a drinking game? okay, sure, I'll play that. Why is the screen fading to black...why am I in a temple...why am I on the other side of the map...WHAT HAPPENED?"

...and it just got better from there

The originality of that quest alone gave the game at least another fifteen hours of enjoyability for me

 

[T8B95]

2) Ok, reviewers should ATTEMPT to be objective. Framerate issues that are very noticeable are a bad thing and a reviewer who wasn't blinded by hype would NOT have turned the other cheek for Skyrim.

3) I provide a YouTube video and you could have found your own instead of/in addition to that and you still can't develop an opinion. I guess you think I am lying to you and the videos are doctored.

5) No, bugs don't have to be taken in context. It's like saying "Well since this deep freeze is so big, you can't expect it to reach freezing temps".

2) I believe that they still would have turned the other cheek. In the Youtube video you so generously provided, the guy says that it's still their game of the year even with all the issues. This just proves my point.

3) I never said that I thought you were lying, nor was it implied.

5) This seems to be the meat of our disagreement. I think that Skyrim's otherwise astounding quality makes up for its bugs. You obviously don't.

 

[Kanatatsu]

OP seems pretty crazy to me.

 

[2fish]

I wonder how long the hype backlash will last. I'm going with two and a half years.

From relase date or from post date?

Also you have to look into any other hyped games that may be coming out as they may change the total. But I would aim for 1 year of these threads then maybe half a year of a few rants but nothing to be noticed. Dates based upon date of this post.

I am still always in wonder of the people who expected Skyrim to have a totally new combat system (as well as some other systems) from oblivion. If you really hate Skyrim that much I say microwave the dvd and put it on youtube if you bought it retail. Can't give it to a friend so hey why not.

If you bought digital microwave erm... your hard drive? A picture of the skyrim dvd?

 

[Skin]

In my opinion, you have very low standards if you think Skyrim is a good game. Yes it is big, but so are MMORPG's...

Within three paragraphs you get from "I accept that everyone has an opinion" into this "No True Scotsman" crap. For a guy yammering about cognitive dissonance, you have an astonishing blind spot for your own biases.

You seemed to have missed the "In my opinion" part... Good job.