Poll: Escapist GOTY 2011 - Skyrim vs Minecraft?

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Athinira said:
Skyrim IMO isn't the Game of the Year material (although I'd pass it a nomination at the very least).

People say it has a sh*tloads of content, but that is actually a clever illusion. Skyrim has an above-average amount of content (for a game in it's genre), but it makes it feel more bloated by wasting your time. You have to travel way more in Skyrim than other games in it's genre (even with the fast-travel system), and it uses the Dragon Age route of making you fight sh*tloads of enemies to complete even simple quests (but it cloaks it a lot better, where Dragon Age instantly gives you the feeling that it's padding out the game with too much combat). Therefore each quest takes longer to complete.

In addition there are several sections that are artificially designed to bore the hell out of you and drag out gametime. One example that stood out to me was when i (as a mage) joined the mage college as an apprentice. When you join the college you get a place to sleep, but where most other games would just mention where your room is located, Skyrim pulled the trick of having the lead mage show you to your room.... walking very slowly, wasting a few minutes of my time, and generally making me feel like I'm participating in an old-folks marathon with a speed limit.

This might fool other people, but it didn't fool me. I will give Bethesda that Skyrim is HUGE, but again, much of the gametime is artificially padded. They cloak it better than other games in most cases, but it doesn't mean you spend it doing anything useful.
What? How does that make sense? It's supposed to be "padded out" by too much fighting and exploring (or travelling), because that's kind of what the game is all about. By that logic you could claim that all first person shooters are actually 5 minutes long, but they're "artificially padded out" by making you shoot a hundred bad guys every time you want to complete an objective.

As for forcing you to follow people, I guess that could be annoying. It's never eaten more than a few seconds of my time personally, but then I haven't even started any of the Winterhold quests, so perhaps it's different there.

OT: I prefer Skyrim by a wide margin, but Minecraft has a lot of extremely devoted fans around here, so it wouldn't surprise me too much if it still came out on top.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
lunncal said:
What? How does that make sense? It's supposed to be "padded out" by too much fighting and exploring (or travelling), because that's kind of what the game is all about. By that logic you could claim that all first person shooters are actually 5 minutes long, but they're "artificially padded out" by making you shoot a hundred bad guys every time you want to complete an objective.
Your comparison to First Person Shooters fall flat because those games work to give you an adrenaline rush (read: excitement) at all times. That's why they're so addictive and replayable, despite being repetitive. Why do you think multi-player games like Counter-Strike, Halo, Battlefield and Modern Warfare have been played for years without people getting tired of them? One of the reasons is obviously the social aspect of a multi-player game, but the adrenaline kick is the other. You're comparing two entirely different driving factors.

Just because something is what a game is 'supposed to be what the game is about' doesn't make it fun, nor good game design. If there is anything that demonstrated that, it's the Fable series, although Skyrim does a much better job of making things interesting.

Mind you, I'm not calling Skyrim a bad game. I'm having a lot of fun with it, but padded game time can't be excused with the fact "It's what it's supposed to be about". Games are about fun, and while Skyrim certainly is a fun and engaging experience, it lacks immersion in some ways, combat is repetitive (without the First Person Shooter adrenaline-kick) and there are stretches where i personally feel bored.

On topic, i voted neither btw. I haven't played Minecraft beyond the free version with limited possibilities, and while it's fun in it's way, but far from GotY material. If i had to pick between the two, it would be Skyrim.

I'm actually not sure what i would pick for my game of the year. Portal 2, Modern Warfare 3 and Crysis 2 are all contenders, but when i get a hold of Arkham City in a few days for PC, i have a suspect that it might actually take the price for me.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Athinira said:
Your comparison to First Person Shooters fall flat because those games work to give you an adrenaline rush (read: excitement) at all times. That's why they're so addictive and replayable, despite being repetitive. Why do you think multi-player games like Counter-Strike, Halo, Battlefield and Modern Warfare have been played for years without people getting tired of them? One of the reasons is obviously the social aspect of a multi-player game, but the adrenaline kick is the other. You're comparing two entirely different driving factors.

Just because something is what a game is 'supposed to be what the game is about' doesn't make it fun, nor good game design. If there is anything that demonstrated that, it's the Fable series, although Skyrim does a much better job of making things interesting.

Mind you, I'm not calling Skyrim a bad game. I'm having a lot of fun with it, but padded game time can't be excused with the fact "It's what it's supposed to be about". Games are about fun, and while Skyrim certainly is a fun and engaging experience, it lacks immersion in some ways, combat is repetitive (without the First Person Shooter adrenaline-kick) and there are stretches where i personally feel bored.

On topic, i voted neither btw. I haven't played Minecraft beyond the free version with limited possibilities, and while it's fun in it's way, but far from GotY material. If i had to pick between the two, it would be Skyrim.

I'm actually not sure what i would pick for my game of the year. Portal 2, Modern Warfare 3 and Crysis 2 are all contenders, but when i get a hold of Arkham City in a few days for PC, i have a suspect that it might actually take the price for me.
I still disagree, because I can't understand what the difference between "padding" and "content" is to you. I would say that the many fights and the large amount of exploration is the content, whereas you seem to be seem to be saying that this isn't the core part of the game, and is only padding that serves to get in the way of that. If that's the case, then what do you consider the actual content to be?

Skyrim has obscene amounts of interesting places to explore, people to fight and quests to complete, therefore it has obscene amounts of content (in my mind at least). None of that is padding in my opinion, because those are the very things I find most fun about the game, and are exactly what I am looking to experience when I play.

Obviously there are matters of personal opinion involved, and if you feel the combat is repetitive or if you are bored during parts of the game then that's fair enough. To say that much of the content is "padding" though just seems to be completely wrong to me.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
lunncal said:
I still disagree, because I can't understand what the difference between "padding" and "content" is to you. I would say that the many fights and the large amount of exploration is the content, whereas you seem to be seem to be saying that this isn't the core part of the game, and is only padding that serves to get in the way of that. If that's the case, then what do you consider the actual content to be?
The same as you consider it to be.

Unlike you, however, i just don't find it interesting at all times, mostly attributed to sub-par pacing.

Skyrim has obscene amounts of interesting places to explore, people to fight and quests to complete, therefore it has obscene amounts of content (in my mind at least). None of that is padding in my opinion, because those are the very things I find most fun about the game, and are exactly what I am looking to experience when I play.
Yes, but actually getting from point A to point B (not speaking about travel here solely, although that certainly is a part of it) isn't kept interesting at all times. A lot of the time you are just doing bugger-all. Exploring the content of the world isn't a fulfilling gameplay mechanic in itself, and it quickly runs dry until you actually get to the excitement.

Even if Skyrim has an obscene amount of content, that doesn't excuse bad pacing. Lets for arguments sake say that Skyrim takes 250 hours to complete and contain 125 hours of content (content in this case being defined as something 'happening' or you actively exploring a questing area like a mine/tower or something). Is 125 hours of content a lot for a game? Absolutely, it's huge by a wide margin. But if you have to spend the other 125 hours being bored, then that still detracts a lot from the overall experience. Most of the time, all I'm staring at is a road, and i don't find exploring the road exciting, only the destination (or when i happen to encounter stuff along the way, which isn't something that happens THAT often). To me, it's a bit like questing in World of Warcraft: Obtaining/turning in the quests is fun, and doing them is also fun, but just moving back and forth be exchange them is boring.

Skyrim even has the cheek to give you quests, but not tell you that you can't complete them at this point in the game. At one point, i traveled several cities (where i hadn't activated the fast travel system yet) for a quest i had obtained, only to arrive at my destination after 20 minutes to find out that i can't continue the quest at that point, and have to wait until later in the game. Sure, having the fast travel system for that city unlocked for later is useful, but at that point i still felt i had wasted 20 minutes.

All I'm saying is that Skyrim just isn't a very well paced, even if it has a lot of interesting places to explore. Playing as a mage, the fact that the spell i by far use the most is Clairvoyance speaks volumes about this.
 

Zeh Don

New member
Jul 27, 2008
486
0
0
I personally think Minecraft shouldn't really be considered a contender, as it's been available for a cash purchase for quite some time. The "post sale" support has been terrific, but frankly, it's "release" was a formality. Besides, I believe Minecraft has already received nominations for "Game of the Year" elsewhere, kind of negating it's presence on the "official" ballot.

Having said that, if it's viewed that it should contend, so be it: Skyrim will still win.

We had a terrific new Deus Ex title that impressed basically everyone, a bombastic multiplayer shooter in Battlefield 3 that left anyone within a mile radius of the PC version drooling, an old school RPG polished to perfection, so difficult it hurt, in Dark Souls - not to mention ground breaking stuff like LA Noir which used facial expressions as a gameplay mechanic. On top of these, we saw Ocarina of Time return in glorious 3D and improved on what is still considered one of the greatest games of all time, as well as the conclusions to Gears of War and Uncharted. And, of course, we had Batman: AC - the greatest use of any licence in video game history. That's not even taking into considering Crysis 2, Starcraft 2 and The Witcher 2.

With all of these insanely terrific games on offer - and in any other year, they could all take a GOTY without really upsetting anyone - I feel pretty confident in saying not a single one of them is even in the same league as Skyrim.
Skyrim is a masterpiece. Nothing else needs to be said.
 

Sandernista

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,302
0
0
AlternatePFG said:
I got tired of Minecraft long ago, and while I wouldn't say it's my favorite game that was released this year, I am really enjoying Skyrim. So between the two, Skyrim I guess.
I can echo this.

Minecraft has slowly faded into the deep recesses of my games folder, and I don't see Skyrim ever leaving my 360's disc drive. (Then again I hardly ever get new games. Or games for my 360 period.)
 

King of the Sandbox

& His Royal +4 Bucket of Doom
Jan 22, 2010
3,268
0
0
Athinira said:
lunncal said:
I still disagree, because I can't understand what the difference between "padding" and "content" is to you. I would say that the many fights and the large amount of exploration is the content, whereas you seem to be seem to be saying that this isn't the core part of the game, and is only padding that serves to get in the way of that. If that's the case, then what do you consider the actual content to be?
The same as you consider it to be.

Unlike you, however, i just don't find it interesting at all times, mostly attributed to sub-par pacing.

Skyrim has obscene amounts of interesting places to explore, people to fight and quests to complete, therefore it has obscene amounts of content (in my mind at least). None of that is padding in my opinion, because those are the very things I find most fun about the game, and are exactly what I am looking to experience when I play.
Yes, but actually getting from point A to point B (not speaking about travel here solely, although that certainly is a part of it) isn't kept interesting at all times. A lot of the time you are just doing bugger-all. Exploring the content of the world isn't a fulfilling gameplay mechanic in itself, and it quickly runs dry until you actually get to the excitement.

Even if Skyrim has an obscene amount of content, that doesn't excuse bad pacing. Lets for arguments sake say that Skyrim takes 250 hours to complete and contain 125 hours of content (content in this case being defined as something 'happening' or you actively exploring a questing area like a mine/tower or something). Is 125 hours of content a lot for a game? Absolutely, it's huge by a wide margin. But if you have to spend the other 125 hours being bored, then that still detracts a lot from the overall experience. Most of the time, all I'm staring at is a road, and i don't find exploring the road exciting, only the destination (or when i happen to encounter stuff along the way, which isn't something that happens THAT often). To me, it's a bit like questing in World of Warcraft: Obtaining/turning in the quests is fun, and doing them is also fun, but just moving back and forth be exchange them is boring.

Skyrim even has the cheek to give you quests, but not tell you that you can't complete them at this point in the game. At one point, i traveled several cities (where i hadn't activated the fast travel system yet) for a quest i had obtained, only to arrive at my destination after 20 minutes to find out that i can't continue the quest at that point, and have to wait until later in the game. Sure, having the fast travel system for that city unlocked for later is useful, but at that point i still felt i had wasted 20 minutes.

All I'm saying is that Skyrim just isn't a very well paced, even if it has a lot of interesting places to explore. Playing as a mage, the fact that the spell i by far use the most is Clairvoyance speaks volumes about this.
Well, there's also the fact that it's the best hiking simulator I've ever played, so getting from one place to another is so preferable to me that I have abandoned my usual fast-travel crutch.

And also, stop following roads, maybe? Then, instead of wasting time on that one quest (which doesn't have a time limit, since it's not even open for completion yet anyway), why not forge your own story as you meet random events and people as you trek through Skyrim's off-the-beaten-path areas? That way, after hours of crafting your own tale of adventure, you come back to that one, and be all, "Oh yeah!", now at a stage where it could perhaps now be completed.

At least, that's what I do.

And yes, Skyrim is my game of the year, obviously. Hell, it's my new favorite game ever, in fact.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Athinira said:
I think you're being a bit too harsh in referring to those segments (such as the old Mage leading you to your room) as cleverly-constructed ruses meant to fool the gamer into thinking the game is more substantial content-wise than it actually is. What about those people who genuinely enjoy segments like that? You refer to them as boring, but that's a subjective term. You may not enjoy the travelling aspect of the game, or the need to explore large stretches of empty road before you encounter the more significant locations, but that perception of these sections as 'padding' is by no means universal, and it is one which I, personally, disagree with.

Now, I'll be honest - I haven't played Skyrim (woe is me), but you saying things such as 'exploring the content of the world isn't a fulfilling gameplay mechanic in itself' or 'i don't find exploring the road exciting' hearken back to my experience with 'Fallout: New Vegas'. I loved that game, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the aspect of that game I enjoyed above all else was the exploratory element, an enjoyment which was not limited to an exploration of the game's marked locations. The in-between spaces - those long stretches of desert, abandoned highways, derelict shacks - were essential to the overall atmosphere of the game. If I was merely hopping from one location to another, from one epicentre of 'excitement' to the next, I believe the game would have suffered for it.

Not only do those in-between spaces lend a sense of grandiosity to the game world, but they also foster the building of tension and anticipation within the gamer as they venture on through the environment, completely unaware of what lies ahead. At least, that's what this so-called 'padding' does for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It seems to me that the aspects of Skyrim you're criticizing are by no means objectively poor design choices; you just happen to not care for them. Obviously, that's your right, and by no means are you wrong in doing so - I just feel as though they are a crucial part of the game, rather than simply being a means of extending gameplay time.
 

saucecode

New member
Jul 30, 2011
263
0
0
tokae said:
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".

OT:
Minecraft. I haven't played Skyrim myself, but from what I've seen, it does look epic and plan on buying it some time soon, but Minecraft is just too big. Possibly bigger than Skyrim. (In its own ways)
 

TheEndlessGrey

New member
Sep 28, 2009
120
0
0
Athinira said:
This might fool other people, but it didn't fool me. I will give Bethesda that Skyrim is HUGE, but again, much of the gametime is artificially padded. They cloak it better than other games in most cases, but it doesn't mean you spend it doing anything useful.
Really? 10 years ago they'd tell you there was a bed in the student hall with your name on it, but it was entirely up to you to find it, and people would complain that they had no idea where it was. There is no pleasing people.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
King of the Sandbox said:
And also, stop following roads, maybe? Then, instead of wasting time on that one quest (which doesn't have a time limit, since it's not even open for completion yet anyway), why not forge your own story as you meet random events and people as you trek through Skyrim's off-the-beaten-path areas? That way, after hours of crafting your own tale of adventure, you come back to that one, and be all, "Oh yeah!", now at a stage where it could perhaps now be completed.

At least, that's what I do.
Hmmm, who does this advice this remind me off again?



.

Simply telling me that following roads and doing quests one at a time is 'doing it wrong' is just trying to excuse shoddy design. I'm not the type of person who likes a cluttered quest log (and I'm not the only one there). I prefer a clean quest log, with 4-6 simultaneous quests, because to me that means a more focused experience, which is something i enjoy more, and i also prefer doing one or two quests at a time max instead of having to worry about them all.

That you found a way that personally satisfies you when playing Skyrim is great for you, but it doesn't mean it's good game design, and it certainly doesn't mean that it applies to everyone else. You might as well have argued that i would perhaps have more fun if i punched myself in the face every time an enemy dealt damage to me.

The fact that you have to deviate from the road in the first place (in more than one sense) to find fun just serves to prove my point. There is a difference between 'having fun with experimentation' and 'having to experiment to find fun', and while Skyrim does contain a lot of fun, it lacks pacing (and i would argue focus as well).
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
I reckon Minecraft is more a toy, like legos, than a real game.
Terraria would make a better GAME of the year than Minecraft, not that I'd pick Terraria either. It's a cute game, but not great.

As for Skyrim, maybe the xbox360 version. The PC and PS3 version have too many problems to deservea GOTY.
 

King of the Sandbox

& His Royal +4 Bucket of Doom
Jan 22, 2010
3,268
0
0
Athinira said:
King of the Sandbox said:
And also, stop following roads, maybe? Then, instead of wasting time on that one quest (which doesn't have a time limit, since it's not even open for completion yet anyway), why not forge your own story as you meet random events and people as you trek through Skyrim's off-the-beaten-path areas? That way, after hours of crafting your own tale of adventure, you come back to that one, and be all, "Oh yeah!", now at a stage where it could perhaps now be completed.

At least, that's what I do.
Hmmm, who does this advice this remind me off again?



.

Simply telling me that following roads and doing quests one at a time is 'doing it wrong' is just trying to excuse shoddy design. I'm not the type of person who likes a cluttered quest log (and I'm not the only one there). I prefer a clean quest log, with 4-6 simultaneous quests, because to me that means a more focused experience, which is something i enjoy more, and i also prefer doing one or two quests at a time max instead of having to worry about them all.

That you found a way that personally satisfies you when playing Skyrim is great for you, but it doesn't mean it's good game design, and it certainly doesn't mean that it applies to everyone else. You might as well have argued that i would perhaps have more fun if i punched myself in the face every time an enemy dealt damage to me.

The fact that you have to deviate from the road in the first place (in more than one sense) to find fun just serves to prove my point. There is a difference between 'having fun with experimentation' and 'having to experiment to find fun', and while Skyrim does contain a lot of fun, it lacks pacing (and i would argue focus as well).
Wow, you seem angry. Relax, bro.

If you're not even mad, then cool.


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. 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. :/
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
King of the Sandbox said:
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.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Games that come in at the start of the year soon drift out of peoples memories, so the later releases are the usual GOTY lineup.
Minecraft hasn't got enough steam anymore to win this one, and you probably noticed a thread or two about Skyrim here recently... the only thing that spammed up the forums more then pony fanatics.
 
Aug 20, 2011
240
0
0
Skyrim, mostly because I don't consider Minecraft a game of this year. Also, as great as it is, it's kind of like Portal in that it's one really good idea implemented well compared to Skyrim which is a beautifully realized world with a great amount of skill put into the artistry, writing, music, and gameplay.