Poll: Escapist GOTY 2011 - Skyrim vs Minecraft?

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

My argument isn't that having a huge epic world is wrong. But you have to have the content to go with it, and while Skyrim does come with sh*tloads of content, it comes with an even bigger world, which makes locating the content (even if there is a lot of it) and solving it more time consuming than it should be.

I disagree, personally, though I do think this applies to many of Rockstar's games. I feel like I can't even make it to one of my objectives in Skyrim without stumbling across a half dozen tangential sidequests.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Wow, you seem angry. Relax, bro.

If you're not even mad, then cool.

I'm not. I'm just using sarcasm to get my point across.

Also, I never said I HAD to deviate from the path to have fun, just that I CAN makes a good argument for how well this game is designed. Most other games give you invisible walls and BS reasons you can't deviate from the main path. And that's fine, for games that aren't open-world sandbox games. Basically, I'm not trying to say you're playing it wrong, but you're playing it wrong. This isn't Uncharted. This isn't Gears of War. This is The Elder Scrolls. And you complaining about how following the main story and a few other quests at most at a time aren't satisfying your need for enjoyment with the game, is like someone saying they don't enjoy GTA while having never played and just run over a group of pedestrians for fun.

Not really.

I'm not complaining that the games open world approach is wrong. I'm just complaining that they scattered the set pieces too far. If they design a world as big as they did, they need to make sure that world is filled, else all you are granting the player is time he will be spending pushing the "move forward button".

My argument isn't that having a huge epic world is wrong. But you have to have the content to go with it, and while Skyrim does come with sh*tloads of content, it comes with an even bigger world, which makes locating the content (even if there is a lot of it) and solving it more time consuming than it should be.

What I'm essentially arguing is that Skyrims world is too big for it's own good, and just to make sure you get me right, by 'too big', i literally meaning the size of the world is too huge. If they could, say, shrink the size of the game world by 20% (just talking the general terrain here, not the cities etc.) then that would actually be doing the game a huge favor.

The game world would still feel huge (in the sense that if someone heavy sits on you, then you can't really tell if he or she weights 350 or 400 pounds, but you can tell that it hurts a f*cking lot), but the pacing would be much more appropriate, and there wouldn't be so long between the set pieces (but they would still take exploration or searching). In fact, throw in a bit more of literally ANYTHING to fill out this big world (more wolves, more random encounters, more bandits, more critters) and the game would suddenly come a lot more alive.

It's just crazy talk. Don't be the kid who just bounces a ball or shoots it through a hoop. Kick it around a little. Draw a funny face on it. Ride it like a mighty stallion if it's big enough. My point is, Skyrim is a sandbox, a toolkit for adventure just waiting for you to dig into it properly. Not doing so isn't the game or the designers fault.

Other than that, I'm genuinely sorry you haven't enjoyed this outstanding game. Better luck with future games, I guess. :/

If you actually read my posts, i said that i DID enjoy Skyrim (and still are, because I'm not through it yet by a long shot). It's a great game.

'Great', however, does not equal 'Outstanding'. It's definitely a contender for my game of the year, but i doubt I'd award it more than the nomination.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that i should kick the ball around is still useless if i have to travel kilometers to find someone to play with. I really mean no offense here, but you are defending Skyrims bad design decisions in the same way that a devoted Apple fan would defend an Apple product (or a christian would defend his religion).

But you got me genuinely curious about how you honestly feel about the game (as in, what hides below your almost religion-like devotion to its design), so I'd like to ask you something. If you were the lead designer on Skyrim, what would you have changed in the game compared to the released version (gameplay/gameworld changes only, no technical/graphical tweaks)? What do you consider good. What do you consider bad? You have more or less an idea of what i think right now, so I'm curious about what you think.

Sorry about thinking you didn't enjoy the game, I didn't read through entirely and I apologize for that.

And yeah, I guess I am arguing like some of the people you mentioned, except that I can accept that you don't care for the size of the game world. That's totally your perogative. I just find it a bit irksome when you say it's the design's fault.

Here, let me explain a bit better by answering your questions.

What would I change? Not much, honestly. I'm pretty friggin' ecstatic with how it shipped. The only real improvement I could think of would be to have your companions have a bit more story to them. But I also realize that I'm no where near complete with the game, and they very well may be in there somewhere.

Basically, I think it boils down to me being an old school pen and paper type of rpg player. This game is the closest I've seen come to the immersion and 'forge your own story' style of gameplay that I crave. Even in situations that seem similar in two different playthroughs, different dialogue, and even outcomes, are possible. This adds to the idea that I'm crafting my own tale, time after time. I also enjoy how you can play however you want. You can be a merchant/blacksmith, a hearty adventurer, a studious scholar, or all of the above. I love that my wife (who also adores the game, yet seems to hate most other non-flash-based games), can just wander the countryside for hours, hiding from monsters and such as she collects alchemical ingredients for her potion making business. I love that my best friend is playing a nordic warrior that smites all in his way. I love that I can play myself, in a fantasy setting, following the pursuits I enjoy, rather than being led by a plot wagon.

I can have 20 unfinished quests and not have it bother me (mostly because I'm not anal about such things, no offense, I know some are), but rather, add incentive to completing them in my own sweet time. At no point do I catch myself saying, "Now what?", without immediately looking through my quests for one that sounds interesting. And since I have so many, I'm never lost for things to do, even if my other, non-quest interests die down. Aaaaand since I've yet to run across any that are time-sensitive, I can tackle them at my leisure.

I can spend an hour perched on a clifftop, watching giants herd their mastodons through the plains. I can sneak through the woods for long periods of time, just simply hunting deer.

Like I said, this game is a toolbox. A set of supplies (or, if you will, a DM with several sourcebooks) that I can use to make my own game, my own story.

That's pretty much why it's my favorite game ever.

 

[Athinira]

That's pretty much why it's my favorite game ever.

Then please don't be offended by this, but you have just proved yourself to be a 'fanboy'. Again, i mean no offense by this, and i can highly appreciate that people show they are capable of passion for something.

With that said, you should also realize that your viewpoint of what constitutes good or bad design in a game like Skyrim is going to be heavily biased, because you basically just admitted that you would love the game despite all it's faults as long as it allows you to do the things that makes you love it. Again, there is nothing wrong with love, but it's like hearing someone telling you that their girlfriend is the cutest and most beautiful girl in the world. You know what they say: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

For those of us who aren't fanboys, and who CAN get annoyed by shoddy design, we can point out several ways to improve the game for non-fanboys (and in fact, i could do that without ruining the game for you at the same time. We are going for a win-win situation for everyone after all). But Bethesda IS known for shoddy design decisions, and they're still there, although i will admit that they did a better job than they did with previous games (*cough* Oblivion *cough*) which is obviously a plus.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

That's pretty much why it's my favorite game ever.

Then please don't be offended by this, but you have just proved yourself to be a 'fanboy'. Again, i mean no offense by this, and i can highly appreciate that people show they are capable of passion for something.

With that said, you should also realize that your viewpoint of what constitutes good or bad design in a game like Skyrim is going to be heavily biased, because you basically just admitted that you would love the game despite all it's faults as long as it allows you to do the things that makes you love it. Again, there is nothing wrong with love, but it's like hearing someone telling you that their girlfriend is the cutest and most beautiful girl in the world. You know what they say: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

For those of us who aren't fanboys, and who CAN get annoyed by shoddy design, we can point out several ways to improve the game for non-fanboys (and in fact, i could do that without ruining the game for you at the same time. We are going for a win-win situation for everyone after all). But Bethesda IS known for shoddy design decisions, and they're still there, although i will admit that they did a better job than they did with previous games (*cough* Oblivion *cough*) which is obviously a plus.

Fine enough. Although I wish you'd explain a bit better how I'm a fanboy. Because, sure, I'm a fan. I'm a fan of things I enjoy. I won't, however, say you're out and out wrong for not enjoying it, or that there's something wrong with you, unless you're blatantly ignoring the spirit of the game (which I don't think you are).

Fanboy has become quite the loaded word lately, bringing a lot of scorn with it. So let's be clear on the difference between fan and fanboy, please.

Don't get me wrong, if a company I love makes something I dislike, I'll be the first to point it out, I promise. Here, as an example I finally thought of something I downright HATE about Skyrim... I wish it had a voice for my character other than Dragonshouts. If you give me dialogue options, let me see and hear my character give them, a la Mass Effect.

There, can I not be called a fanboy now? lol

EDIT: Also, the 'faults' you mention are subjective right? That's where the issue comes in. It's opinion, man. No dev will ever make a game that pleases everyone. But they can cater to those that get the most from their games, and I think that's what they're doing with Skyrim, which is fine by me.

EDIT EDIT: Also, according to your opening remark there, anyone with a favorite game is labeled a fanboy? Sure, as long as we understand it means fan (which I'll assume since you said 'no offense') and not rabid, un-yeilding wall of dev butt-kissing.

 

[Legit101]

................

 

[Athinira]

Fine enough. Although I wish you'd explain a bit better how I'm a fanboy. Because, sure, I'm a fan. I'm a fan of things I enjoy. I won't, however, say you're out and out wrong for not enjoying it, or that there's something wrong with you, unless you're blatantly ignoring the spirit of the game (which I don't think you are.

Fanboy has become quite the loaded word lately, bringing a lot of scorn with it. So let's be clear on the difference between fan and fanboy, please.

Well, there are several tendencies that characterizes a fanboy.

First of all (and this is really the biggest sign), fanboys in general can't find any (pr very few) faults with the subject matter, with the exception of them wanting more. This is also part of the reason i asked you to criticize the game, explain what you liked and what you didn't like. You didn't do that. Instead, you explained everything the game made you feel when you play it, and your only criticism (or rather, two criticisms including your edit) fell under the category of 'wanting more'. Fanboys also have a tendency to describe things that from the outsiders perspective is considered either bad or insubstantial as something they consider 'flavor'.

I'm going to reveal a startling realization here (or not): While most people agree that nothing in the world is perfect, the truth is that nothing in the world is even CLOSE to perfect. Therefore, when someone describes something as close to perfect, it always sets off my fanboy alert radar. You see, a fan is generally able to come up with MUCH criticism, even for the things they love. I'm a fan of a great many things, but if you asked me the question i asked you two posts ago about anything i can be considered a fan off, i could likely come up with hundred times the criticism for it. For example, I'm a huge fan of the Metal Gear Solid franchise, so big a fan that i bought the fourth game for the PS3 despite not owning the console so i could play it occasionally at my neighbors house (when i don't bother him too much, the poor sod), and i could still criticize the game to death. The only game i have never been able to criticize totally to death is the Baldur's Gate series because it does so many things right (both on the technical and gameplay level), but even it would leave with some scratches if i were to examine it, and most importantly i can understand why some people would directly HATE playing a game like Baldur's Gate (more on this in the last paragraph).

I guess i would personally define the difference between a fan and fanboy by the fact that a fan is never blinded to facts by his 'love' for the subject. You, my man, seem very much like someone who is blinded to the faults of the game by your love for it. It's not about pointing out that you dislike something. It's about pointing out what you dislike about something you like, and the two 'faults' you found in it isn't even faults, it's just personal wishes you would like to see included.

EDIT: Also, the 'faults' you mention are subjective right? That's where the issue comes in. It's opinion, man. No dev will ever make a game that pleases everyone. But they can cater to those that get the most from their games, and I think that's what they're doing with Skyrim, which is fine by me.

Yes, but here is the problem: fanboys in general aren't capable of understanding why something that they like might be despised by someone else.

For example, when i said that the pacing was bad and most of the time, not enough was happening, instead of you saying "Okay. It doesn't bother me personally, but i can understand if you find yourself bored at times when travelling", you instead started to try explaining why you personally wasn't bored with the same feature, and how it was 'great design'. I had a similar discussion with an Apple fanboy at some point, where i pointed out something important that an Apple product was missing, and instead of him going "Okay i can understand why someone could miss that", he started explaining to me that it was an entirely irrelevant thing (with no understanding for that fact that i don't consider it irrelevant), and then started going on about all the other things that made his Apple product gods gift to man. I'm confident i would have puked eventually if i had eaten.

Bottom line is that while you might respect that not everyone is going to enjoy the game as much as you, you don't (or possibly can't) understand why, and are making little effort towards trying to realize why things that might be a small deal for you (or even make the game better for you) might annoy the hell out of the rest of us.

You might find every second of exploration exciting, even if it just means finding more terrain beyond the next hill, but when I'm playing Skyrim, my excitement simply can't stay high if something isn't happening, and if there is too long between the setpieces, then all I'm essentially doing for minutes is pressing forward, sprint and activating Clairvoyance, which makes me feel like driving a car with a GPS Unit that is powered by rotating a handle. Mind you, Skyrim DID become a lot more entertaining for me after i read on the internet how to activate the speedhack so i could run faster and minimize the time between interesting stuff happening, but in an outstanding game, this wouldn't have been necessary (and while on the subject, many people have also found the carrying capacity to be too restrictive and simply annoying, so modifying it via. cheats has also become extremely popular).

 

[King of the Sandbox]

-megasnip-
Bottom line is that while you might respect that not everyone is going to enjoy the game as much as you, you don't (or possibly can't) understand why, and are making little effort towards trying to realize why things that might be a small deal for you (or even make the game better for you) might annoy the hell out of the rest of us.

Or, perhaps I simply don't agree? Is that not an option anymore? I mean, it seems rather more one-sided to me, as I've made concessions, even criticizing something I hated about the game. Here's another for good measure, I wish my companion AI was smarter. As it stands now, Barbas keeps shoving me, even when standing still, and Faendal takes ages to catch up with me if I even run the tiniest bit ahead of him. Also, Barbas, since he's not a true companion, always registers as alerted to me, thus rendering my visibility/stealth to others unknowable.

I didn't have these 'problems' readily available when pressed, because they simply didn't push through the layer of awesome good things in the game (in my mind) enough to register as major issues.

And I honestly don't think I did as the 'Apple fanboy' did. I addressed the very thing you were talking about, all the while understanding your issue, and offering ways to possibly help. I never said anything dismissive or anything you'd hear from those types of people.

Basically, yes, the game has flaws, but they are few and far between, and if I let others who find ones I don't particularly see as 'flaws' (such as world size) push them as poor design, well, you can see where I'd be a bit defensive. I'd rather look at the whole painting, instead of criticizing a few errant brushstrokes, when those very brushstrokes may be ones I happen to find interesting, I guess is what I'm saying.

 

[ACman]

I don't think minecraft can really be considered to be a game of 2011. It's main draw, mining/exploration/survival/creative-toy existed in it's current form for some time. The 'gamier' elements such as the nether, the end, the strongholds aren't really enough of an enhancement to call it a game on the same level as a triple A title.

If minecraft released enough variation in it's dungeons to mach zelda or skyrim then I change my opinion.

 

[Athinira]

Or, perhaps I simply don't agree? Is that not an option anymore?

No, because this is not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is about understanding that what works for you might not work for everyone else.

You can't 'disagree' with my notion of fun for the simple reasons that 1) It's different from person to person, and 2) It's MY notion, not yours. You can't tell me that I'm "wrong" when i say something annoys me. This is why i posted that Steve Jobs photo earlier, because you are essentially trying to tell me right now that I'm "holding my sense of fun in the wrong way". You can tell me that you personally consider it fun and exciting. And you know what? I can understand that. Fun IS subjective. So why on earth are you trying to tell me that I'm exercising it in the wrong way?

Basically, yes, the game has flaws, but they are few and far between, and if I let others who find ones I don't particularly see as 'flaws' (such as world size) push them as poor design, well, you can see where I'd be a bit defensive.

...and this, my friend, is another definition of a fanboy. One who gets defensive, when his beloved subject is critisized, rather than 1) trying to understand why some people would critisize it for that, or 2) simply dismiss it as their own personal opinion.

Let me correct your statement for a minute: The game has MANY flaws and MANY poor design decisions, and they aren't few and far between. You just have a much much much easier time living with them. But they are still there. If they weren't, then people like me wouldn't be able to notice them in the first place.

Edit:

And I honestly don't think I did as the 'Apple fanboy' did. I addressed the very thing you were talking about, all the while understanding your issue, and offering ways to possibly help. I never said anything dismissive or anything you'd hear from those types of people.

You outright dismissed my problem with the exploration being boring by simply saying that it was exciting and good design. That isn't addressing the thing i was talking about, all you did was explain how you personally found it exciting nonetheless. I wouldn't go as far as saying that you expected it to work for me because it worked for you, but you certainly didn't understand by any stretch or mile why it didn't work for me

 

[legendp]

I would say portal 2. it was short but every moment of it felt incredible (as long as you new what you were doing but that can apply for the other 2 as well). neither skyrim or mine craft do that (in my opinion)

 

[Shameless]

Never cared about Minecraft to begin with so Skyrim.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Between the two, easily Skyrim.

Minecraft is a solid videotoy, but it isn't much of a video game.

 

[tokae]

Minecraft has been out for the public to play for what.. A year and a half now? It ain't new, simple as that.
My choice is Skyrim. Not that Minecraft ever could be a contender in my book, never enjoyed it.

So a game isn't new, and therefore not good? It has been through the same development cycle as Skyrim (more or less) but just so happened to be avalible to the public since the start of development. Im starting to thing that if Skyrim did this, you would dislike it for being "old".

And you derived that statement that from which particular imaginary word?
GOTY, Game. Of. The. Year. The meaning of that acronym is not something up for discussion really. It's not like the words are that ambigous.
And as I have stated in many threads, GOTY is something subjective, different for every person, and year. A game that you like is your GOTY. But a game from last year won't be GOTY this year. If a new patch count as a new game then most games would be up to contend EVERY year..

I'm really not here hating, keep that in mind. I am though, very perplexed, by how you came to that conclusion from what I said. Was it really that vague?

 

[Trololo Punk]

Minecraft is really good, but I don't think I could give it game of the year.
I'm split between how much I enjoyed Arkham City and how much I currently am enjoying Skyrim.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

So a game isn't new, and therefore not good?

His point was that the game cannot be GOTY 2011 because it didn't come out in 2011. They say that Minecraft was "released" only this year, but the beta was hardly a beta at all, anybody could pay for it and play it, and there was no feedback support or bug fixing going on, just updates. Realistically, Minecraft "came out" and the end of last year.