Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I kinda dont think that's fair to say. I mean Skyrim was a colossal game, like head and shoulders above any AAA game out these days. I think of it like GTA4 when that game first came out. I remember reading somewhere on this site that GTA4 should be the game of the year for the next 10 years or something like that. Skyrim is the same mega-achievement.

I mean when my copy of GTA4 broke, I went out and bought it fucking again. I'd do the same for Skyrim ten times over until the next game came out.

I don't realistically expect those other developers to release anything anywhere near the level of Skyrim. I mean if they were, well, it'd be fucking amazing. Rainbows and unicorns amazing.

 

[Denamic]

I kinda dont think that's fair to say. I mean Skyrim was a colossal game, like head and shoulders above any AAA game out these days.

That's the entire point.
It's a colossal game, despite having no online connectivity whatsoever.

 

[Talvrae]

I hear more often players saying they need multiplayer than i hear the industry say so -_-

 

[MannyDon]

Best video so far man and the end was very funny love your work.

 

[Thyunda]

Fucking lol at all the armchair industry veterans here, who don't know the first fucking thing about making games in todays world.

Too many to bother a quoting cycle, but wow. There are a lot of people on the Escapist that really talk shit...

Also, I refuse to watch the video itself, incidentally enough. Skyrim fans have been circle jerking over their RPG for months, and I really don't need to hear(for the millionth fucking time), how ball-draining epic Skyrim is.

But there are loads of great games released this year that haven't had online connection, but because they weren't THIS property, an Elder Scrolls game, then they didn't sell as well, despite being very popular things in their own right. Arkham City and DX:HR spring happily to my mind. Where was the fucking jubilation then?

Sheep.

Because one of Jim's points in the video happens to be 'They didn't hold Catwoman to ransom'. I don't know if you noticed, but if you didn't buy Batman new, you didn't get Catwoman without paying extra. That's half the story missing.

Since, clearly you're too full of yourself to actually watch the video, I'll sum it up.

1. Skyrim proves you don't need multiplayer to be hugely popular.
2. It's the biggest threat to Call of Duty, and proves that Battlefield 3 had the wrong idea about copying it to beat it.
3. It's a full game without paying any extra. The incoming DLC is extra stuff players would WANT, not NEED.

Arkham City, while awesome, is nothing compared to Skyrim. Deus Ex was a disappointment. The jubi-fucking-lation wasn't there because the games didn't earn it. Good God, drop your hatred of RPG fans and just accept a good thing when it happens. I'm no fucking sheep because I happen to believe Skyrim to be the best game I've ever played, nostalgia glasses notwithstanding, because Sonic 2 used to be the shit, and it gets so much praise because it DESERVES it.

The whole theme recently has been criticising developers who don't put time or effort into their games, and rely on cheap tricks to score extra pennies. DRM, exclusive new-game content, project $10, all of that bollocks. Skyrim cuts all that shit out and gives you the whole banquet straight up, and we're sheep for being happy that at least ONE developer hasn't given in to the online pass shit?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

[Grimbold]

Multiplayer for Skyrim would be awesome. A coop-multiplayer that is.

 

[GeoFlux]

The ending was weird in a funny way but Jim was spot on.
Game developers have gotten pretty tight with their content lately and their prices.

 

[Smithburg]

Jim I will comment on your video as soon as I'm done playing Skyrim...


So Ill be back in 3034

 

[Smithburg]

2. Wow, if Jim actually said this then he truly is pathetic. I honestly thought a man of his stature in the professional gaming press would be above this kind of wrong statement. I'm gonna have to watch the video now to see if this is something he said. But in a nutshell, who gives a fuck about 'beating' Call of Duty? A single player, open world RPG isn't even in the same playing field as a multiplayer focussed military FPS, only a complete asshat would say they even can 'compete', and the business people behind Skyrim would've known that. Also, CoD RAPED Skyrim at the sales. Skyrim sold very well, and is a huge success, but nothing on CoD.

He wasn't saying Skyrim is trying to beat COD, he said that it is doing much better than the games which are trying to beat the sales numbers of COD by copying the way COD plays like battlefield 3 did with its huge competitive ad campaign.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

The scream in the middle makes me laugh every single time.

Nice job!

 

[Raioken18]

Is this a joke?

Skyrim sold well because everyone who was a fan of Morrowind and Oblivion went out and told them how awesome it was and the users really sold the game. It is pretty, I will give it that, but it falls short in so many ways, a crappy interface, terrible combat, wooden npcs, glitches, unbalanced class structures, and if anything it is an example of how multiplayer is necessary to extend the life of a game as by the end of week 1 most of the people I know who hadn't played the other two and tried it out, no longer played it.

Infact most of them went back to their respective multiplayer games, some to WoW, others to BF3 (I don't know anyone who will admit to playing CoD). Personally, I went back to playing my way through Dark Souls as I enjoyed the combat aspect waaay more and most of all, I had fun playing it. (I do know that it is ironic as it has some of the most terrible multiplayer pvp, mixed with some useful co-op and message systems).

Yet the thing is, even with the downloadable content thing, YOU STILL CANNOT RESELL IT BECAUSE IT'S A STEAM REGISTERED GAME. Frankly, if I could I would have sold mine already.

The reason so many copies sold in the first 2 days? It's called Pre-orders, which this game reminded me never to do again.

 

[Rack]

Oh look, Jim being wrong again, how surprising.

Oh look someone saying something negative about something factually without having any argument in his post to back it up. Shine on.

Do you really need me to point out that adding multiplayer to some games isn't the same as saying all games need multiplayer? Or that saying online passes can extend the profitibility of some games isn't the same as saying no game can survive without them?

Or put simply that no-one was saying Skyrim couldn't succeed without multiplayer, weak DLC and online passes?

 

[Versuvius]

Spoiler

This is what Jim made me think at the end. Right down to the terrible, terrible expression...

 

[Ghadente]

Skyrim FTW!

 

[Para199x]

8 hours to complete skyrim does Jim play side quests?

 

[Lost In The Void]

Oh look, Jim being wrong again, how surprising.

Oh look someone saying something negative about something factually without having any argument in his post to back it up. Shine on.

Do you really need me to point out that adding multiplayer to some games isn't the same as saying all games need multiplayer? Or that saying online passes can extend the profitibility of some games isn't the same as saying no game can survive without them?

Or put simply that no-one was saying Skyrim couldn't succeed without multiplayer, weak DLC and online passes?

See there's a answer worth responding to because yes, you do need to say things like that to avoid coming off as ignorant and ill informed.

To answer the question though, no, no one was saying that Skyrim couldn't survive without weak DLC, Multiplayer and online passes; that wasn't the point that the video was trying to give off. Rather, what the video was saying is that despite the industry saying that games in general aren't profitable unless they protect from piracy with online passes, flood the game with weak DLC and tack Multiplayer on to avoid trade ins. Skyrim bucked the trend on all counts, giving the exception to this rule that the publishers were trying to portray to the masses, it proved that games don't need those things to remain profitable.

It wasn't that people thought that Skyrim couldn't do it without the things mentioned above, but instead it was about showing that the publishers of other companies are perhaps being a little too melodramatic.

 

[Magnalian]

Why does everybody keep shouting 'FUS RO DAH' when that is essentially nothing more that a force push? For crying out loud, there's a thu'um that alows you to breathe fire!

On another note: Jim, if you catch someone sneaking around your house tonight, don't worry: that's just me trying (and failing) to steal your hat.

Seriously I want that hat.

 

[GonzoGamer]

"And hell, we don't even need for it to work properly. It can freeze, crash, stutter, and lock up quests, and they'll still buy it purely on hype."
That's what I'm afraid of.

That's the thing Jim. Bethesda is one of the only companies I would be willing to pay an extra $10 to if they could promise that the game would actually work. EA and the rest of them can of course go fuck themselves with their $10 passes.

And yes, while I do regret buying Saints Row 3 (I had no idea it had an online pass or had half the game carved out for dlc before buying it: saints row 2 was so generous by comparison), I'm still glad I waited on Skyrim. I'll get it after they've patched it up a bit.

That's an epic ending too; I want some of what Jim's smoking.

Everyone always cries out that Bethesda games are always the buggiest things ever released and so Skyrim must be buggy too and yet, I've put 70 hours into Skyrim and outside of a few CTD's that have stopped over the last week, considering the size of the game it's the least buggy thing I've played this generation. Granted, I can only speak for the PC version, but I've probably only encountered one or two bugs in my entire play-time and none of them have effected the actual game in any way (apart from a dragon falling through the planet and respawning dead at its altar).

Take it with a grain of salt, obviously, because everyone always seems to experience a different number and type of bugs when it comes to Bethesda games, but I can honestly say that in my experience, Skyrim is pretty damn stable.

OT: Well, do I really need to say anything? Five pages in this thread, nobody except me is going to read the entire thing. Suffice to say, I agree with you Jim, like I usually do.

Really? If it's a slow day I might get through quite a few of these pages but I didn't think anyone would read the whole thing. Sometimes there are some real gems though aren't there.
That's the funny thing, I kind of consider CTDs a pretty big issue (even though they are much more common in my PC games and if that's the only problem you're having with a Bethesda title, you're probably lucky) and was one of the most annoying things about the last couple of Fallout games. What bothers me is that people have been saying "I haven't had any problems with Skyrim except CTDs," which is bad enough "oh and freezing... and maybe some stuttering in areas....and there was that locked quest." To me, those ARE major issues.
After installing a few mods (correctly; a pain in the ass but worth it) in Fallout 3, I didn't have any more crashing problems.
Have no doubt that I will eventually get Skyrim but I'll probably just rent the ps3 version, send it back when it starts freezing, then wait for goty pc when all the modding is at it's prime.

I was hoping (though based on their record, not in the least optimistic I'll admit) that the ps3 version wouldn't be the usual botched port of a broken game. Hell, if that miracle struck, I would've even gotten the ps3 CE...and then goty for the PC when that comes out. And while most ps3 ports are a mess, Bethesda's can be unplayable at times. I'll admit, if I only played on the PC, I would probably be more forgiving. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered getting a console this generation.

 

[LorienvArden]

Im terrible sorry for breaking up the general circle-masturbation of "Praise Jim for he is right!", but there where no points in his video that where not totally obviouse from the moment Skyrim got it's first positive score. Clearly this series is not for me. I expect some more insight into the matter then this... guess I'll have to digg up the extra credits guys again.

Please recognize WHY there is so much cookie cutting out there and why "the big guys" keep playing the DLC & DRM game.

Skyrim was a financial risk. If it proved to have fatal flaws at launch and tanked - heads at Bethesda would roll like during the french revolution.
There is no risk with a sequel. The sheep will buy it.
There is no risk with always on DRM. The sheep will buy it.
There is little risk with selling you the box first and the game later as DLC. Most sheep will buy it.
The market has proven that it is not capable of rational thought and willing to be exploited by steady itteration instead of innovation.

"The big guys" can't take the risks to produce highly innovative and risky games- they are slaves to their shareholders. Money needs to be made to sate the greed of those with a stake in the company.

To those enjoying BF3 or Cod... have fun there. I sincerly hope those series will go on forever so that you stay far far away from games you could ruin for me.

 

[Robert632]

I hate his video.

It has the gal to say this 1 game proves the entire system wrong, yet barely mentions the others that have done the exact same damn thing in the last 2-3 years. It also bases it's entire argument on saying that because 1 example of a video game does what isn't generally though of as successful content yet manages to be successful, it therefore proves the entire industry wrong. To use an analogy, it's like saying all turkeys are poisonous to humans if all we have to go on that statement is 1 damn turkey killing someone by somehow containing poison. that just doesn't work. It certainly shows evidence, but not sufficient to make such a blanket claim.

Also, if I somehow missed the point of this video, someone can enlighten me if they feel like it.