Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong

[Kapol]

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.

 

[scarab7]

So Jim where do you get all that cool swag? I want to know, that stuff makes things sexible. And before you laugh at Jim dragon shout you know you do it too when you play the game.

 

[Urh]

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?

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

-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)

 

[wooty]

Even though I always often hear that Skyrim is the best game ever and now it proves the industry wrong......it still sadly couldnt hold my attention for more than 3 days.

 

[draythefingerless]

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...

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).

 

[Bluecho]

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!

 

[draythefingerless]

Even though I always often hear that Skyrim is the best game ever and now it proves the industry wrong......it still sadly couldnt hold my attention for more than 3 days.

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.

and its not the best game ever. its just a good game for what it does.

 

[draythefingerless]

One problem is that the execs are responding to the load vocal minority (coincidentally the same groups that US politicians respond to) that demand multiplayer or co-op in games. You don't have to look hard and you will find people that want co-op added to TES V so that they can enjoy it with their friends.

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.

 

[Callate]

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".

 

[dfphetteplace]

I completely agree. I wish video game developers would make games because they love to make games, not to just make money.

 

[viranimus]

Im not comparing Skyrim to CoD because of the gameplay mechanic of die and retry. I compare Bethedsa to activision for slapping a somewhat fresh coat of paint onto an existing well selling formula and letting the fans irrationally herald it as the single greatest advent since the exact same thing was released this time last year. I am sorry, but If you cant see something smacking you in the face like a purple rubber dildo Nothing I will do will make that easier. Just because one is unable to comprehend what they read does not make it illogical or incomprehensible for everyone especially when all it takes to start a verbal blood war is simply to imply (not even directly say) something that poses anything from the TES series in a less than glorious light.

I stand by what I say. Skyrim didnt prove the industry wrong. The witcher 2 might have done what Jim Suggested. Dark Souls might have done what Jim suggested, but outside of selling CoD level well, Skyrim did nothing positive but reinforce many of the negatives the industry faces right now. Sorry, I disagree with Jims (or any TES/Bethesda fanboy for that matter) rose colored glasses view of skyrim.

 

[airrazor7]

I'm...going to go buy Skyrim now. Like, right now. Bethesda owes you a marketing fee, Jim. I've been on the fence about this game and I'm always looking to get into new genres that I've never tried before. Thank you Jim for helping me make an informed decision.

I was sold at the "single player game with many hours of game-play and no multi-player" part.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I don't get Skyrim.
It has no atmosphere. It has no interesting characters. It has no important overarching goals (well, there are dragons, but you kinda lose belief that they can actually cause damage after slaughtering dozen of them without any effort). It is ugly and lacks any color besides grey. It's buggy to the point of not being able to finish some quests. And despite all of that I've been playing it for 55 hours and want more.

Well, Skyrim is one of those games that encourages you to use your imagination instead of relying on predetermined imagination of developers. You are who you want to be. And it definitely has atmosphere. You just need to allow yourself to be immersed without expecting the game to tell you want to do every step of the way. It's kinda old school in that way.

 

[Sylocat]

I'm not even a fan of the Elder Scrolls series, but even I can appreciate what Skyrim represents, for the reasons Jim has outlined. Also, y'know, the fact that it's not even an FPS.

So, now that a big-name, big-profile, A-list title has done all this, is there a chance other publishers might start following suit?

 

[The Lugz]

Thank-you jim, for improving the world.

in fact thank f for jim, frankly.

 

[Metalrocks]

its not always the industry that wants to put MP all the time in to games, its the people who say a game is only good if it has MP.
i read in few forums that people complained about mirrors edge for example, because it has no MP or even shadow harvest, people said they will not buy it because it has no MP or co-op. so as mass effect. these are the once who should really get blamed for being such retards.
im not saying jim is wrong, he is absolutely right, just want to point out.
sometimes i do enjoy some MP games and i do enjoy playing MW3 so far. every now and then playing it is alright. but still doesnt beat a good SP game like half life.

its good to hear that skyrim is doing well and does not follow other companies with the MP stuff, but it still will not convince me to get it because i was never in to this fantasy and magic stuff.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, now that a big-name, big-profile, A-list title has done all this, is there a chance other publishers might start following suit?

No.

At best, they will try and copy it, including online, online passes, restrictive DLC and many corners cut.

Lesson not learned, in short.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Well, Skyrim is one of those games that encourages you to use your imagination instead of relying on predetermined imagination of developers.

You are correct, sir. I hereby award you +5 internets.

I just hope Bethesda allows the same freedom in the next Fallout game. Being railroaded into a single backstory kills any chance of actually creating a character that's your own.

 

[Javarock]

My major complaint with Skyrim is it being one part Oblivion, one part WoW.

The infinite quest thing is BS. All they are are a constant go here, kill/steal that, return and the only difference being the location and who the target is. The only reason to do it is money, you never get any tangible benefit. It's all for the sake of stat grinding.

I found some of them interesting. While it may have been great if all dungeons were related to side quests that was something I didn't quiet like. Because I would have to check if some were in oblivion to see if I could just do it for the sake of exploration or If I should wait at the risk of missing a vital part of a side quest. Besides for those with lake of motivation it can convince them to try out a few dungeons they had added without a specific quest. Going towards that even some who had no relation just had interesting stories you can discover and make of what you will from bodies or journals.

The dragon thing is BS. Outside the last boss, every one of my friends can one shot a dragon, and have 60-70 souls that will never get used. After a while, they just become an annoyance.

There's a few variations of dragons that are unleashed as you advance at levels. Despite the fact I'm a level 38 I have had some close calls with dragons. Granted the starting ones (Blood Dragon And Normal) Are Easy.

The magic system, while pretty, was gimped so that the spell creator and more spells can be DLC later.

I don't see them doing that at least as a complete DLC in itself. More so what would be the motivation for people who play it on the PC when they can just make more spells using the tool set.

The console ports have been buggy as all hell, and while many of you smile from your tower of the "PC MASTER RACE", not everyone can afford a gaming computer.

That's because they wait for major bug fixs for the console (At least from what I Heard) The amount of updates they can do is limited, or costs a lot more money. The good thing is that they are actively preparing to help.

Skyrim is a good game, but don't take examples from it.

I beg to differ, what mistakes they made should be taken into account in order for future games of the same type or their next game. Things that did well should also be taken into account in order to even improve of keep within the game.

But that of course is a contrast opinion to yours, In a attempt to share view points from different angles.