Skyrim Becomes First Western Game to Nail 40/40 Famitsu Review

[AugustFall]

HOW. Is this worthy of a perfect score? I was fine with the crap in Oblivion and Morrowing, with its entirely unimmersive gameplay that could only be improved with playermade mods. But this game was horrid. I played on a PC, and from that the default control scheme, the one that you'd expect to be done right considering it was made for PC's like Oblivion and Morrowind, but apparently wasn't because the WASD setup no longer functions, and the completely humiliating intro that has you handcuffed and sent to death (again, I might add, but this time with less care) only for 'gasp' something to intervene.

Maybe I find most people to be generally retarded, but come on. This was no better than half the trash I saw this year.

People have different taste than you therefore they are retarded. Way to perpetuate the pretentious gamer stereotype.

Anyway. Hopefully this sells well in Japan as well, good positive reinforcement for Bethesda to keep up the good work. Hopefully that wouldn't convince them that yearly releases are a good idea.
Also spending the time to make a PC style PC version wouldn't go amiss.

Edit: Also of all the complaints this game may warrant I haven't run into any problems with WASD... Care to elaborate?

I was running on a non-updated game; it may have something to do with that my 360 controller set up specifically for Mugen cancelled out all the other controls even after I took the controller out and reset the game.

I'm pretentious, yes, but the problem is, I try to have validity behind my pretentiousness. Games that recieve an ungodly amount of hype (Mass Effect, Skyrim, Modern Warfare) go directly onto my 'Skeptical' list.

I also like to play my own sort of game while playing this. I attempt to go into games, keeping that sole game as its own existence. No prequels, no sequels; even if they exist I don't put them into the context of that game. Now; after starting the game, around the first few minutes, I had no idea why I was doing any of the things I was doing, and slowly stopped caring. I could say that it was a survival instinct, but if it was a survival instinct I wouldn't have been set up falsely accused of being something I have no idea the existence of, and would start out from a completely different position, something the game completely fails to do without additional mods. Its around that time that I just give up on the game. Even if it gets better later, that does not in any way warrant a perfect score. Ever. If I'm allowed to write off Final Fantasy XIII for not making any sense at the beginning, even if it 'gets better later', then I can do the same for Skyrim.

I have games I like that emphasize story over the rest; Alice: Madness Returns, for example, was my favorite game this year because it was able to keep gameplay, and story, separate and still engaging. Sure, the beginning seemed weird, but in the first hour you're able to figure out that this is, indeed, a sequel to another game; it could have even been a sequel to the books themselves and would still make sense. With Skyrim they don't give you that information and seemingly expect you to just figure stuff out on your own.

The biggest flaw Skyrim has is its inability to make sense. Why in the hell would a guy hunting dragons need to loot brooms from someones house to sell for random equipment that he then sells later? If the game promises choice, then why am I not allowed to set fire to villages and run around laughing at the burning headless chicken? You can say that you can, but has consequence; what if I don't want consequence for having fun? And that's why Skyrim just flew off the deep end of boredom, and I went back to beating Megaman Maverick Hunter X for the 13th time.

Okay, why don't you take sequels and prequels into account? You don't read Return of the King and go, "Well they didn't explain anything. Who the fuck is Frodo and why does he have this ring?"
They don't have to explain everything because you were supposed to read them in order. If a game has a big fat 2 on the box odds are there is some content you're missing. Now some make an effort to clue you in but the fact of the matter is that a series is a series, as in a series of things with an order to them.
On to your next point about not knowing why you are doing what you are doing. It's a Role Playing Game. You do whatever you want to do. It's not scripted like most games; you choose how you want to act in any given situation. Why are you stealing brooms? The hell if I know that sounds like an odd thing to do. You have one and only one piece of preset info about yourself. You are Dragonborn. Why are you fighting dragons? You don't have to if you don't want to. I do it because it's fun and my character has accepted his fate. Your character may be different.
If you want to know more about the world then you can go find out. You can talk to people and ask questions. Explore in the hopes of finding people to answer your questions. Like you would and do in the real world.
It's not like other series in that your questions are answered in time. You learn about the Elder Scrolls as they become relevant to the plot, you learn why there are dragons and all that by playing the game. This is what makes the experience so immersive. Everything that happens in the plot happens to you. You witnessed the first dragon attack, you sought answers on who you are and what's going on. Your character has no preset knowledge of what's going on because you don't any knowledge of what's going on. You aren't guided down a set of hallways and you don't listen to your character's opinion of a situation. You choose where to go and you choose how you appraise things.

This is most likely why it fell flat for you. You said you liked Alice because it kept story and gameplay separate. This is counter-intuitive in gaming. Gaming allows you to, as a player, experience the story first hand. Why have a story in a game at all if it in no way reflects the gameplay? Why have gameplay at all if it doesn't enhance the story.

You're free to have your own preferences in gaming but saying that a game is bad for the reasons you have listed is short sighted and has no validity. It simply sounds like a bloated opinion of a game from someone who barely played it.
Again if you didn't like it then no, don't slog through it. But your opinion is not writ and being pretentious is not a good character trait.

The primary problem I'm going to pick at here, is that if a game cannot give any information in the first hour, it is not worth sticking around to get more out of it. If the game was given more choice than it gives, it would give you the choice to not be a Dragonborn. A lot of people would still choose it, but its not there to begin with. In Alice it kept them separate, but meaningful. And not as separate as I put them out to be.

The problem in Skyrim, in the end, is that when it emphasizes story (As most RPG's are bound nearly by law to), it has to hold up on that before it can be held up on gameplay (Graphics don't count, this isn't an art studio.) And while someone would say that games aren't books, that's no longer the case because games become old without reason to do things. And Skyrim's story falls flat without any initial reasoning; being thrown directly into a carriage and being told "You're going to die now, kthnx" is not good story, regardless of what happens afterwards, and even regardless if they go back to explain it later a la FFXIII.

If something doesn't happen in the first hour of the game I usually stop playing. Like Heavy Rain. If the event seems forced onto the subject at hand (AKA, the dragon somehow finding you and freeing specifically you, nevermind that other bloke who just got decapitated), it seems just plain insulting to keep playing.

Now, in another game, Bioshock for example, you could say that your guy being the sole survivor was bad storytelling. But the problem here is, the confusion going into the game is subsided by it being a game based more on the immersion of gameplay rather than story. And because Skyrim emphasizes story, I can't consider it nearly 40/40, maybe more 10/40, as the story is just plain dumb.

And for the LotR thing; no. Isn't the same. In LotR you're expected to have read them in order, and in all honesty I consider it all one giant story anyways. Like Harry Potter. Except the writers got drunk around chapter 5.

I wasn't clear, my bad. I was trying to point out afterwords that you don't need any previous experience with ES to enjoy the story. I'm a prime example of this as I have never played ES till this one. It fully explains everything and never expects you to have knowledge of the universe outside of what is available within the game.
The story is dumb? You've played an hour of it and from the sounds of it made no effort to seek out the story. The chopping block is not part of the story. It's simply the prologue, setting of the scene. The dragon doesn't save you... again you don't know the story so how can you judge it?
"Well I only played an hour of it and had no idea what to do," the game was beaten in 2 hours by a tester. Now realistically a new player will probably take 8 hours to make their way through the main storyline but the game has far more content than that. I have put 60 hours into the game now and nowhere near the end because I am playing my character, what would he do? He would hunt adventure.

Once more, if you don't like the game that's fine. But to define a non linear game as story based is silly. To then consider it a bad game because the story (which from your posts it's clear you have no knowledge of, good effort) insults you due to you being the "chosen one" is silly. Finally, to then take your own subjective opinion, disagree with a review which is also an opinion with the evidence of the "the game is bad" is silly.

We all have opinions, mine is quite clear as I have been waving it about. It's no more valid than yours but you have little to no experience with this game and your gripes are all based off of preconceived notions of what an RPG should be and how Skyrim didn't add up to them. Skyrim provides an open ended playground in an interesting universe with an underlying story which you are free to follow if you want. And in my opinion that story is pretty engaging if you actually play it.

 

[DarkRyter]

As far as standards go, I'll keep it simple so you'll have less to object to. There are objective qualities to an art form, and they become more abundant as the art form becomes more complex (games being mostly so). Objective qualities such as depth, variety, intuitiveness, originality or fidelity. Standards dictate how much of each of these qualities I demand for the game to be good. In context, of course, of what the game is trying to achieve.

All those qualities (depth, variety, intuitiveness, originality, fidelity*) are subjective, so they're pointless. Who's to say one game anything is more varied or intuitive than another?

An objective quality would be something more along the lines of an empirical observation, or a numerical measurement. Mario has a moustache. Objective. Arkham City needs 4 gb of RAM. Objective.

"Goodness" isn't some programmable trait. There's no number to be measured. No math to be done. It's a completely subjective quality, and that comes with all the bias and opinion that comes with being subjective. There's no such thing as "accuracy" or "standard".

"Ain't nothin but feelings and feelings don't mean shit." ~ Emily Dickinson.

Also, I don't think relativism is boring and cliched. I think it's pretty intuitive. Varied, even.

 

[Paladin Anderson]

Wow, it saddens me to feel that I have standards far higher than supposedly 4 of the hardest-to-please critics.

Yes. You disagree. You obviously must have higher standards.

Because standards don't exist, or because Skyrim surpasses all of them?

Standards do not exist. There's no such thing as an objective measure of quality.

Whether something measures up to a standard is little more than opinion. Whether a standard is higher than another standard is downright arbitrary.

People just like to disagree. It makes them feel superior over the majority. Let's take Twilight for example. Sure. It's worth hating. It's worth hating a LOT. Sparkling, emo vampires, heavy handed religious messages, stalking=love, terrible writing, and the list goes on and on. But how many people have valid reasons for hating it and how many hate it just to stand out from the rabid crowd of fans or to fit in with their friends that say they hate it?

It's fashionable to hate things. Just like it's fashionable to smoke. No one starts smoking because they LIKE gagging on smoke. It makes you stand out or fit in. Which ever you're going for.

 

[shrekfan246]

Huge Snip

I'm not looking to jump into this argument with you and whoever else in this thread, but every single game you've cited enjoying has been a very story-driven linear-world game. Have you ever thought that maybe a massive open-world game that doesn't force you into its story just isn't your thing? The opening of Skyrim is exactly the same as the openings to Morrowind, Oblivion, and arguably Fallout 3. They introduce you to the world, ask you to build a character, give you a general area to visit first, slap you on the back and say go crazy. As far as coherency is concerned, I'd say Skyrim actually is much better than Morrowind or Oblivion.

If you really enjoy a tightly-woven narrative in your games, then yeah, it's going to be hard to enjoy The Elder Scrolls, because any non-delusional fan of the series will tell you that the actual story of each game is usually short and poorly developed. It's not about experiencing the story, it's about experiencing the world. So maybe it's just not your type of game?

 

[Denariax]

Huge Snip

I'm not looking to jump into this argument with you and whoever else in this thread, but every single game you've cited enjoying has been a very story-driven linear-world game. Have you ever thought that maybe a massive open-world game that doesn't force you into its story just isn't your thing? The opening of Skyrim is exactly the same as the openings to Morrowind, Oblivion, and arguably Fallout 3. They introduce you to the world, ask you to build a character, give you a general area to visit first, slap you on the back and say go crazy. As far as coherency is concerned, I'd say Skyrim actually is much better than Morrowind or Oblivion.

If you really enjoy a tightly-woven narrative in your games, then yeah, it's going to be hard to enjoy The Elder Scrolls, because any non-delusional fan of the series will tell you that the actual story of each game is usually short and poorly developed. It's not about experiencing the story, it's about experiencing the world. So maybe it's just not your type of game?

That would be the case, but I also love Saints Row. All three of 'em. Crappy story but hilarious over-the-top gameplay.

 

[cthulhumythos]

SNOP

just to throw in my two cents, i agree. the whole having higher standards is utterly ridiculous due to 'standards' being largely dependent on variables ( an example being the oh so dreaded opinion).

huh, that was brief. less of a 'my 2 cents' and more of a 'my one cent'. maybe even just a ha'penny.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

If Skyrim loses Game of the Yaar or any awards in general to any game, especially Modern Warfare 3, I will have lost faith in humanity.

But then again, I barely have any faith in humanity to begin with.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I need to replay the part where you finish the unrelenting force shout. I swear i read Da and not Dah...

 

[Buccura]

In an ideal world, this would prompt JRPGs to change themselves up a bit. Of course, maybe I'm just biased but damn it, I want to see a Elder Scrolls like Pokemon game!

 

[Scars Unseen]

I wonder what the word "Dovakhiin" sounds like in a Nordic Japanese accent?

DOVA-KUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!
]

Oh god i'm picturing it now:
Every woman in Skyrim is wearing one of those "sexy" catsuits
All the characters have huge eyes
The dragons have tentacles.

I'd pay ¥5000 for that game.

 

[Scars Unseen]

As far as standards go, I'll keep it simple so you'll have less to object to. There are objective qualities to an art form, and they become more abundant as the art form becomes more complex (games being mostly so). Objective qualities such as depth, variety, intuitiveness, originality or fidelity. Standards dictate how much of each of these qualities I demand for the game to be good. In context, of course, of what the game is trying to achieve.

All those qualities (depth, variety, intuitiveness, originality, fidelity*) are subjective, so they're pointless. Who's to say one game anything is more varied or intuitive than another?

An objective quality would be something more along the lines of an empirical observation, or a numerical measurement. Mario has a moustache. Objective. Arkham City needs 4 gb of RAM. Objective.

"Goodness" isn't some programmable trait. There's no number to be measured. No math to be done. It's a completely subjective quality, and that comes with all the bias and opinion that comes with being subjective. There's no such thing as "accuracy" or "standard".

"Ain't nothin but feelings and feelings don't mean shit." ~ Emily Dickinson.

Also, I don't think relativism is boring and cliched. I think it's pretty intuitive. Varied, even.

There's nothing intuitive or varied about spouting the "That's just like your opinion, man" line at every turn. It's not even logical. You astound me with your arguments. "That's subjective, so it's pointless." Didn't even use 10 words there. I'll tell you who's to say that, everyone who can utilize logic. I'm almost at a loss of how to explain it, these are such basic logic gaps they make my brain hurt.

Think for one moment, because you're being annoyingly narrow-minded. Contrary to what you seem to believe, everything I listed, intuitiveness to a lesser extent, are objective traits. If we were to believe your little theory for a second, Atari 2600 games don't have graphics or sound capabilities any worse than modern games, Mario is a game just as deep as any RPG, moving cursors with direction keys is just as intuitive as using a mouse, Ping Pong has more variety than Saints Row 3 and Modern Warfare 3 is just as original as Bioshock. Are you ready to build a case for any of this? Or will you hide behind your slogan?

Stop saying things don't exist just because you don't like the concept. This is my last reply if you don't pick up on anything I say. There is a place for subjectivity and opinions, but that place isn't anywhere and everywhere.

but what you demand from a game can differ from another. It's fine to say that a game doesn't meet YOUR standards, but don't automatically assume that your standards are THE standards.

Mkay, all I said is that my standards are higher than those of the critics in question. It means I am harder to please, basically. I don't see what is so wrong with my statement.

Mostly the problem with that statement is that is is highly presumptuous to claim that you have higher standards than a publication that, unlike more modern review sources, only very rarely hands out perfect reviews(17 in 25 years). A far more mature approach is to claim differing tastes. I can't speak for the quality of work that went into Nintendogs, but I don't care if it is the absolute best pet simulator of all time(and as the third best selling game of all time, it may well be); I have no desire to play it.

 

[RaikuFA]

So a WRPG can have a good score in Japan and do pretty well but when JRPGs are released over here people just go WEEABOO GARBAGE!!! WHY ARE THEY HERE?!?!?!!?!?! acting like racist idiots over it.

 

[DarkRyter]

Mostly the problem with that statement is that is is highly presumptuous to claim that you have higher standards than a publication that, unlike more modern review sources, only very rarely hands out perfect reviews(17 in 25 years). A far more mature approach is to claim differing tastes. I can't speak for the quality of work that went into Nintendogs, but I don't care if it is the absolute best pet simulator of all time(and as the third best selling game of all time, it may well be); I have no desire to play it.

We could be talking different tastes if I explicitly stated that I generally hate open-world RPGs or something to that extent. I would be happy to have a little debate here, but it usually ends with my opponent basically repeating the same thing over and over (as the other guy I quoted here) until leaving eventually. Not worth the effort.

It basically boils down to this. These reviewers thought the variety (item, customization and gameplay-wise) was enough - more than enough, actually, near perfect; I thought they were extremely lackluster. They thought the skill system in the game was awesome, I thought it was unimaginative and restrictive. They were happy with the character's progression basically halting half-way through the game, I was not. Et cetera. If you're interested to know a little more about my position, there's a small wall of text I wrote here. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.324775.13293959]

Asking for something else is a matter of taste, asking for more is a matter of standards.

Who's to say Modern Warfare is any less original than Bioshock (Not that I necessarily agree, but it's an opinion. Doesn't matter.)? Modern Warfare 3 has a kid that gets gas bombed. Bioshock doesn't have that. Most games don't have that. If we're measuring originality by number of kids being gas bombed (no reason why we can't), than Modern Warfare is pretty damn original.

Intuitiveness is by definition subjective. The ease at which something is understood(discerned by intuition) is subject to who is trying to understand. For Steve, it's easy to access his Dragon-Age Inventory. Inventory starts with i. Steve hits i. John has to read through tutorials and use the game manual. Same game, different people, different experiences in relation to intuition.

(Also, there have actually been studies to show the effectiveness between using a mouse and joystick, and for whatever reason a wiimote, and it has been shown that mice tend to have a higher degree of accuracy. It's been postulated that joystick movement(being a matter of both time and trigger displacement) cannot match the mouse's use of displacement alone for movement detection. Just throwing some shit out there like Bill Nye the Science fucker)

Graphical and Audio capabilities are an objective quality. More advanced technology with a higher potential for graphical and aural fidelity. That's an empirical observation. Hell, it's even got hard numbers (polygon count, audio bitrate, necessary processing power).Does it mean a game looks or sounds better? That's more of an argument on aesthetics. Somebody could say Okami looks much much better than Mass Effect, and what way is there to convince them otherwise? Mass Effect shows a higher degree of naturalism(in that the people look more like people, instead of paintings), but what does it matter to OkamiLover1995? And I'm damn sure more people have the mario theme song on their iPods than "Exile Vilify".

Deepness(which is apparently an actual word. I'm gonna use it instead of depth because I'm a crazy ************) is also vague and based around the incomparable. Unless you're working straight off of complexity, which is pretty objective. But complexity =/= deepness. Or maybe it is. I don't know. I'm a doctor, not a dictionary. And I'm not even a doctor.

I'm not trying to upset you, and I'm not trying to repeat myself. I'm not even gonna use the word arbitrary anymore. Instead I'll use mustard.

I'm just trying to make the point that whatever your standards are, they're mustard, because whatever your reasoning is for why a game is good or bad, they're only distinctive to you and you alone. Anything you want more of, someone might purposefully want less or green or Jamaicany-er. There's no universally expected threshold by which video games can be judges or standards can be held.

Your view isn't higher or stricter, it's just different. And just now I've finally realized the meaning behind the idiom "There is no accounting for taste".

*Also, that comment I made on relativism being intuitive or varied was not intended to be sincere. I was trying to point out how arbritr mustard terms like "intuitive" and "varied" were by using them completely out of context. I thought it would be pretty funny. Apparently it wasn't. How did you like the Emily Dickinson quote though? You can ignore everything else is you want to, but I really do need to gauge your reaction to that joke.

 

[burymagnets]

Previous games making rank include Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy VII, and Pokemon: Black and White.

Final Fantasy XII, the best FF, got 40/40.

VII only got 38

 

[The Lugz]

Hopefully this means that we will be receiving some sexy Japanese mods shortly.

Yeah, I know, I'm a sick and twisted individual.

so, a squid boss? and a schoolgirl class? sounds about right lol

honestly, i don't think any mod could make skyrim bad i mean it's skyrim.

 

[Pat8u]

I wonder what the word "Dovakhiin" sounds like in a Nordic Japanese accent?

DOVA-KUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!
]

Oh god i'm picturing it now:
Every woman in Skyrim is wearing one of those "sexy" catsuits
All the characters have huge eyes
The dragons have tentacles.

No, the bears will have tentacles.

1 000 000 000 000 internets for you

Ot: Nice I kinda expected that japan would like it after a couple japenese game designers said they liked the look of it

 

[Syzygy23]

Hopefully this means that we will be receiving some sexy Japanese mods shortly.

And instead, some cute mods, for me.

Japan does cute better than sexy, in my opinion. There's a lot of stuff about both in Japan, but I find that cute is clearly Japan's modern forte. And looking at their modern pop culture, I think that no matter how much Japan appreciates sexy, they appreciate cute far more. They're masters of the art of cuteness far more than sexiness.

And I, for one, have no interest in turning my RPGs into a porno.

I do, however, like nice frilly dresses, pink ones, pastel colours, and a cute little lady or sweet little guy to go in that dress.

There's nothing like plowing through and heroically saving a world you inhabit, as a cute little lady in a pastel pink frilly dress, with a gigantic axe.

"Cute" and "sexy" aren't always mutually exclusive in Japan. There is a LONG history of borderline or full-on culturally accepted (or, more recently, frowned-upon-yet-ignored) pedophilia.

I thought Japan was the bees knees until they made me do a report on it in high school. Yeah, it's all anime and JRPGs and good times at first, then suddenly you question the artists decisions to draw the 10 year old main character of a beloved anime series with skirts that don't even reach past their knees.

Also, didnt Bioshock completely bomb in Japan? If their culture can't stand clever deconstruction of Ayn Rands philosophy (most notably spelled out in Atlas Shrugged) not to mention damn fine shooting and breathtaking aesthetics, then maybe they don't deserve Skyrim.

And for what will most likely be the minority who are willing to put aside their xenophobia of western games, too bad! You'll have to wait as long for Skyrim as WE had to wait for Xenoblade chronicles! It's only fair!