Most of the bugs are funny anyway. For instance, after spending a good half a day in a dungeon, I exit to find a dead mammoth crammed upside down and planted so deep that it looked like a series of hairy shrubs, with no visible explanation for how it ended up there.
Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
He hit the nail on the head: These big companies want to turn games into "services" that require buying extra DLC, fees, steam-like apps, and logins to play.
I'm hopeful people will notice, but I doubt it. Releasing full games isn't as profitable as releasing a game for full price and then nickle-and-diming you for extra money
I'm hopeful people will notice, but I doubt it. Releasing full games isn't as profitable as releasing a game for full price and then nickle-and-diming you for extra money
Yeah Bethesda is just like CoD, I love the new Elder Scrolls every year, the fact that each time it's on the same engine with no improvements to graphics or gameplay.viranimus said:
I am going to presume that the 'working formula from CoD' it has taken is that it sells well?
You realise your post said nothing right? Bethesda is like CoD (because?) and Bethesda making RPGs is like buying Mexican food. Good attempt at an anti-Bethesda response.
And the CoD formula isn't even bad, it wouldn't be widely popular and successful if its formula didn't work, not that that has anything to do with Skyrim anyway, since it isn't remotely like CoD.
Looking through this thread, I'm starting to think I was the only one rolling my eyes at his points (yes I know, you're never the ONLY one, shush).
The only point I feel he is correct on is the online pass thing (and that's only because Batman just tried it with a single player component, before that, I don't think we ever had to worry about single-player online passes). If it wasn't for Batman throwing it out there, my eyes would be rolling at that too.
The multi-player thing is something being said by developers putting multi-player into their games. Plenty of companies are not going that route and not blabbing at the media about how it is the future. The only reason it's at the forefront now is because a few developers are saying it's the future. With that said, I bet Skyrim would be a blast if you did add a second person...
The "Be like Call of Duty" argument doesn't work because the game can "Be like Oblivion". It's a sequel, so it's got the advantages of being a sequel working in it's favor that an original IP won't have.
Lastly, the length of the game's main quest is only approx. 30 hours (granted, is a good sized game in today's market). Yes, there is a ton of side stuff to do and self populating quests, but I can't imagine they're going to be of great quality. This is one aspect where I hope I'm wrong since that's a sweet idea in theory but how many times can I fight the same re-spawning dragon before even that loses its charm?
Maybe I'm just cynical in my old age of 25...
The only point I feel he is correct on is the online pass thing (and that's only because Batman just tried it with a single player component, before that, I don't think we ever had to worry about single-player online passes). If it wasn't for Batman throwing it out there, my eyes would be rolling at that too.
The multi-player thing is something being said by developers putting multi-player into their games. Plenty of companies are not going that route and not blabbing at the media about how it is the future. The only reason it's at the forefront now is because a few developers are saying it's the future. With that said, I bet Skyrim would be a blast if you did add a second person...
The "Be like Call of Duty" argument doesn't work because the game can "Be like Oblivion". It's a sequel, so it's got the advantages of being a sequel working in it's favor that an original IP won't have.
Lastly, the length of the game's main quest is only approx. 30 hours (granted, is a good sized game in today's market). Yes, there is a ton of side stuff to do and self populating quests, but I can't imagine they're going to be of great quality. This is one aspect where I hope I'm wrong since that's a sweet idea in theory but how many times can I fight the same re-spawning dragon before even that loses its charm?
Maybe I'm just cynical in my old age of 25...
50 hours in, and I've only just met they Greybeards. If the game can keep this up, I'll have 100 hours clocked before I'm anywhere near the finale.
And when I finally do beat the game, not a single motherfucking moment will have been spent playing online. Bethesda, I've said some mean things about you in the past - and they're still relevant, really - but I love you for this game. What a perfect way to teach the collective games industry a much-needed lesson.
And when I finally do beat the game, not a single motherfucking moment will have been spent playing online. Bethesda, I've said some mean things about you in the past - and they're still relevant, really - but I love you for this game. What a perfect way to teach the collective games industry a much-needed lesson.
You know what... I started playing Skyrim and though to myself... Self, Jim was right I HATE ENTERING CODES... this is what playing a video game should be. Then he did this video. Didn't have to watch it to know what he was going to say.
Though I hope that more video games start to go back to this style of game design I am also hoping they do one more thing that they did in Skyrim... Add More Dragons. All video games need dragons. Even if it is a steampunk dragon, a dragon in a dream sequence, or hell a Komodo Dragon. Doesn't matter as long as they add more.
Though I hope that more video games start to go back to this style of game design I am also hoping they do one more thing that they did in Skyrim... Add More Dragons. All video games need dragons. Even if it is a steampunk dragon, a dragon in a dream sequence, or hell a Komodo Dragon. Doesn't matter as long as they add more.
I disagree with a few things. The first being your first point. While it is true that not EVERY game needs multiplayer, you forgot to factor in a lot of things about the situation. The first is that Skyrim is a sequel to a wildly popular franchise. It's not going to be surprising when it sells well. That's be like being surprised the Mass Effect 2 sold well because it didn't have multiplayer (and I'm not going to comment on MP being in 3). While it may make the point that franchises don't need MP, not having it can hurt games that either don't have a massive fanbase already or a new IP.
There's also the fact that Skyrim is nearly infinitely replayable. Of course that's not a bad thing by any means, but that's not something that every game can realistically do. Skyrim is from a series and a dev team known for having giant open worlds with various quests and things to do. That means that it has an edge over games with a tighter focus that wouldn't work as open world.
My example of this is Alan Wake. I loved Alan Wake. But after I beat it, I sold it. Why? Because there was nothing to do after that point. I loved playing through the single player mode, experiencing the story and the moments it had. But once you've done it, there's no incentive to do it again. You know the story and plot. You know how things happen. There are things to get, but most of them are pointless overall. And you know what? I can't think of how they could add replayability. They could have added MP of course. But it would have likely been awful and out of place. And because of that lack of replay value and being quite different from many games (not an FPS, not an RPG, story-based, and fairly slow in terms of build-up), it didn't sell well and became cheap fairly quickly.
That arguement also goes into the 'online pass' arguement a bit. While I do think online passes are stupid overall, I think many games do get it right. And I'm going to go back to Alan Wake again to show as an example. If you bought the game new, you got the first DLC free. It wasn't just some half-assed add-on already on the disk, and at the same time you didn't need it in any way to fully enjoy the game. So not all 'buy new' incentives are bad.
Overall, you did have many good points (though the live action parts of the video where you acted like an ass made the video annoying as usual for me). But most of what you said are things that almost everyone, especially here, find obvious and will agree with completely because they all say it over and over again anyways.
There's also the fact that Skyrim is nearly infinitely replayable. Of course that's not a bad thing by any means, but that's not something that every game can realistically do. Skyrim is from a series and a dev team known for having giant open worlds with various quests and things to do. That means that it has an edge over games with a tighter focus that wouldn't work as open world.
My example of this is Alan Wake. I loved Alan Wake. But after I beat it, I sold it. Why? Because there was nothing to do after that point. I loved playing through the single player mode, experiencing the story and the moments it had. But once you've done it, there's no incentive to do it again. You know the story and plot. You know how things happen. There are things to get, but most of them are pointless overall. And you know what? I can't think of how they could add replayability. They could have added MP of course. But it would have likely been awful and out of place. And because of that lack of replay value and being quite different from many games (not an FPS, not an RPG, story-based, and fairly slow in terms of build-up), it didn't sell well and became cheap fairly quickly.
That arguement also goes into the 'online pass' arguement a bit. While I do think online passes are stupid overall, I think many games do get it right. And I'm going to go back to Alan Wake again to show as an example. If you bought the game new, you got the first DLC free. It wasn't just some half-assed add-on already on the disk, and at the same time you didn't need it in any way to fully enjoy the game. So not all 'buy new' incentives are bad.
Overall, you did have many good points (though the live action parts of the video where you acted like an ass made the video annoying as usual for me). But most of what you said are things that almost everyone, especially here, find obvious and will agree with completely because they all say it over and over again anyways.
Despite Skyrim's massive commercial success, I just *know* that at one point somebody at Bethesda or Zenimax will say "Sure, we sold eleventy billion copies, but we could've sold eleventy trillion copies if it weren't for all those fucking PC pirates!"
I haven't played Skyrim yet, so I'm assuming that little spazz-out that Jim had at the end was Skyrim-related?
I haven't played Skyrim yet, so I'm assuming that little spazz-out that Jim had at the end was Skyrim-related?
-sigh-
Straight Face and agreeing during the entire video...
-Ending-
and I lost it
You know hate or love Skyrim all you wish...everything is true...the part about SR3 was saddening...because it is short as hell (1/3 of the missions are just jobs from 1+2)
Straight Face and agreeing during the entire video...
-Ending-
and I lost it
You know hate or love Skyrim all you wish...everything is true...the part about SR3 was saddening...because it is short as hell (1/3 of the missions are just jobs from 1+2)
They ARE of great quality. imagine about 100 dungeons each with its own layout, basic setting, sometimes some dungeons even have interweaving storylines. or the serial killer at windhelm. or the slaughtered family near winterhold. thats just 2 examples of SOOO much shit youll find. good shit too, there isnt any half assed ones. really, the main quest doesnt even FEEL like a main quest apart from the fact of it having more detail weaved into it(more interactions, better dialogue).tippy2k2 said:
The problem many game developers seem to have is this idea that a game needs to have other types of gameplay mashed in so other types of players will buy it. Why did LA Noire, a game praised for its well-done interrogation sequences, need the final sequence to be an action one? It'd be like a Pheonix Wright game that ended with an arbitrary fist fight.
When you try to please everyone at once, it only frustrates everyone who might not want the other parts, or who find the added bits to be sorely lacking. I'm looking at you, Battlefield 3. If you didn't care about single player, just be a multiplayer only game!
When you try to please everyone at once, it only frustrates everyone who might not want the other parts, or who find the added bits to be sorely lacking. I'm looking at you, Battlefield 3. If you didn't care about single player, just be a multiplayer only game!
i feel ya. everyone plays League of Legends, but i HATE THAT fucking game. like, i know its good quality, i do, but i just cant fucking like it. specially after seeing what it does to people. i havent seen one single LoL player have fun while playing it. theyre always stressing out, or raging out. but thats just my experience with it.wooty said:
and its not the best game ever. its just a good game for what it does.
thats just an addiction. i enjoy TES V fine with a friend, i can be playing and he can just be next to me talking about it, and vice versa. and i dont need him barging in my game with his char. not saying its a bad thing, just that its not worth the trouble.kiri2tsubasa said:
Of course, The Elder Scrolls had their own unfortunate run-in with multiplayer; it was called Battlespire. So perhaps in part it's about not making other companies' mistakes when you've already had your own chance to learn that they are mistakes, another luxury not every developer gets.
I'm as tired as anyone of the "We only make sequels to proven properties or games that are derivative of others' successes" attitude, but I'm less than convinced that more uncertainty about how to proceed is likely to lead to innovation rather than just hesitation to release much of anything. Until we address the problems inherent to the risks of developing big games, companies are going to continue looking for a largely non-existent "sure thing".
I'm as tired as anyone of the "We only make sequels to proven properties or games that are derivative of others' successes" attitude, but I'm less than convinced that more uncertainty about how to proceed is likely to lead to innovation rather than just hesitation to release much of anything. Until we address the problems inherent to the risks of developing big games, companies are going to continue looking for a largely non-existent "sure thing".