Skyrim is bad as an RPG, but would have been decent as an action adventure: Discuss

[vidirg]

I think it should pass as an RPG you make your own character, you make decisions, your character gets better the way you play it and you role-play as the Dragonborn.

 

[Thaius]

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be judging a western RPG based on the standards of a Japanese one. You can't go into a WRPG and expect well-developed characters, with the exception of a few rare (though increasingly common) ones. You go in expecting an open world and a myriad of choice-based quests and storylines. If you want interesting characters, you should be playing Lost Odyssey, The World Ends With You, or Final Fantasy VI.

I don't mean to turn this into a JRPG vs. WRPG thing; both are great, and let's not even bring up the insipid notion that either aren't "real RPGs." But both are different. Judge them based on what they're trying to be.

 

[Two-step]

Any other role playing experience you've had is you stepping outside of the bounds of the game and using your imagination to make up for the deficiencies of the game you were playing. Which is pretty much what role playing is all about. So guess what? Everything I just said? Comeplete and utter bullshit. If you believe you had a role playing experience, you did. I don't get to decide, and neither does the OP.

So everything is a Role-playing game, meaning nothing is. Equal parts deep and meaningless.


Since we've decided that Skyrim isn't an RPG any more/less than Joust is an RPG, I suppose it's up to us to figure out what Skyrim truly is, at its core.

I believe that Skyrim is a Bigfoot pizza from Pizza Hut. Do you remember that pile? It was a massive pizza, like the size of a bathtub, made with the cheapest ingredients anyone has ever dared use in a consumable product. But, this Skyrim pizza, you eat it alone, in a room, for hours and days. Every piece of it sustains you, only so that you can continue on to eat the next piece. Every piece tastes bland, and offers you almost noting in the way of nourishment, but it's still pizza, so you're not upset to be eating it. Pizza is inherently good, but, god damn, the more you eat this pizza, the more you come to hate the taste of it. After a time, it becomes a punishment. "Oh god, not another slice of that same stale-ass shit. There's so much of it, and none of it makes me happy! All this time and not once have I felt satisfied!"

This is the experience of playing Skyrim. It is an exercise in tedium that leaves you numbly continuing forward not for any meretricious reason, but only for its essential nature. TES games are always good in their nature, if not for what they offer. You will never feel as content to remain unsatisfied as you feel playing an Elder Scrolls game.

But, let's look to how and where it failed each gamers primary impulse so that such tragedies can be avoided.

The Storyteller is unsatisfied because there is no evidence growth or meaningful change, so there is no story. The hero does not change. The world does not change. The world-eater is banished, and the game continues on with little more than 7 extra lines of dialogue. There are no revelations or revolutions. You snuff the empire/rebellion and the new boss is the same as the old boss. Every now and then you'll get a piece of dialogue where someone will comment on how they don't care who's in charge. That's your revolution. And how they tried to make it "a world" is an insult. Just because the quest-and-money dispensers go to sleep for 8 hours a day, that does not make it any less robotic. They are just robots that are programmed to be unhelpful.

The Power Gamer is unsatisfied because the system is too simple and broad. There is a single perfect path, as obvious as can be. Max out all crafting skills and make unstoppable weapons, accessories, and armor. Grind BS until every skill is maxed. Every character can be perfect given enough time, regardless of skill or expertise. But there are no rewards worth having, no powers worth acquiring, and no one who gives a crap that you've done either. If you concentrate on a few key skills, you can top out in effectiveness so early on that you will spend the next 90% of the game wearing the same armor and using the same weapons to 1-hit kill every enemy in the game, and only bother with other crap to break up the tedium of being a perfect killing machine.

The Butt-Kicker is unsatisfied, because the combat is crap. Here's how bad the combat is. Adept, the "normal" difficulty setting that the game starts on, has enemies taking 70% of the damage that your weapons are advertised to do and dealing 130% of the damage you would with an equivalent weapon/spell. That's how they decided to challenge you, by making you half as effective as your enemies. So, that spell you have that does 60 damage, really does 42 damage when you cast it, and 78 damage when you get hit by it. Beating a bear to death with a nerf bat is not the key to The Butt-Kicker's happy place.

The Tactician runs into the same problem as The Power Gamer. Every situation is best solved by a sneak attack with a Daedric bow for 3000 damage. That's the best way to clear every dungeon and win every fight, as well as the most realistic way for a person to survive.

The Specialist is out of luck, because while he can totally create that character that he plays in every game, even if that character is a catman acrobat, he still can't play that character. Or, more accurately, the world doesn't give a shit who or what his character is. Race and gender barely even matter for fluff. Can you really play a character when the essential nature of who your character is has no impact on anything?

The Method Actor has no audience and {multiple choice - same outcome} syndrome. It's "But thou must!" from here to eternity. Nothing to play off of and minor amusement only within the confines of what's possible. You could role-play a schizo-prophetic thief who believes that he exists in a boring world full of useless automatons and he must steal all their keys in order to turn them all off. You could even have a decent time of it. You could also glue silly eyes onto your penis and chase the cat around the house with it. I don't think the latter would really be less fulfilling, artistically.

The Casual Gamer might not really have much to complain about since, when the game needed to compromise or choose, the spinner always landed on The Casual Gamer's side. Don't really wanna pick a class? Well, your class is "blah" You're a level "meh" "blah" who "so-sos" in everything. Have fun doing or not doing whatever. Thing is, they made the game too daunting for The Casual Gamer. Causal Gamer doesn't want to spend 180 hours getting attacked by frostspider and sassy nord at random. Casual gamer wants to put the controller down after an hour to check on his laundry before House starts.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Any other role playing experience you've had is you stepping outside of the bounds of the game and using your imagination to make up for the deficiencies of the game you were playing. Which is pretty much what role playing is all about. So guess what? Everything I just said? Comeplete and utter bullshit. If you believe you had a role playing experience, you did. I don't get to decide, and neither does the OP.

So everything is a Role-playing game, meaning nothing is. Equal parts deep and meaningless.

In theory, I suppose. In practice, however, how many people actually go into Madden with the intention of role playing as a football coach?

Since we've decided that Skyrim isn't an RPG any more/less than Joust is an RPG, I suppose it's up to us to figure out what Skyrim truly is, at its core.

Are you engaging in majestic plural now? I'm fairly certain this viewpoint is far from unanimous. But continue.

I believe that Skyrim is a Bigfoot pizza from Pizza Hut. Do you remember that pile? It was a massive pizza, like the size of a bathtub, made with the cheapest ingredients anyone has ever dared use in a consumable product. But, this Skyrim pizza, you eat it alone, in a room, for hours and days. Every piece of it sustains you, only so that you can continue on to eat the next piece. Every piece tastes bland, and offers you almost noting in the way of nourishment, but it's still pizza, so you're not upset to be eating it. Pizza is inherently good, but, god damn, the more you eat this pizza, the more you come to hate the taste of it. After a time, it becomes a punishment. "Oh god, not another slice of that same stale-ass shit. There's so much of it, and none of it makes me happy! All this time and not once have I felt satisfied!"

This is the experience of playing Skyrim. It is an exercise in tedium that leaves you numbly continuing forward not for any meretricious reason, but only for its essential nature. TES games are always good in their nature, if not for what they offer. You will never feel as content to remain unsatisfied as you feel playing an Elder Scrolls game.

This is less a failed analogy than it is misdirected hyperbole on both accounts. The Big Foot was made from the same ingredients as any other Pizza Hut pizza, and many people enjoy Pizza Hut(else they would be out of business). Like Skyrim, the Big Foot was quite popular in its time. Like Skyrim, you can add things to it if you want a different flavor(cheese and red pepper vs mods). Your descriptions pretty much fail, or at least you are in the minority on this opinion of yours. Anyway, moving on.

But, let's look to how and where it failed each gamers primary impulse so that such tragedies can be avoided.

Skyrim is a tragedy now? Now I know you're trolling. Or firmly entrenched in Hyperbole Valley. One or the other.

The Storyteller is unsatisfied because there is no evidence growth or meaningful change, so there is no story. The hero does not change. The world does not change. The world-eater is banished, and the game continues on with little more than 7 extra lines of dialogue. There are no revelations or revolutions. You snuff the empire/rebellion and the new boss is the same as the old boss. Every now and then you'll get a piece of dialogue where someone will comment on how they don't care who's in charge. That's your revolution. And how they tried to make it "a world" is an insult. Just because the quest-and-money dispensers go to sleep for 8 hours a day, that does not make it any less robotic. They are just robots that are programmed to be unhelpful.

I didn't even read this section. If you bought Skyrim for its story, then you haven't been paying attention. Hi! Welcome to The Elder Scrolls! Home of many things, but certainly not any sort of well told storyline. This game is more of a palette for you to write your own story. That's something we like to call role playing in some parts. Player agency: it's what's for dinner.

The Power Gamer is unsatisfied because the system is too simple and broad. There is a single perfect path, as obvious as can be. Max out all crafting skills and make unstoppable weapons, accessories, and armor. Grind BS until every skill is maxed. Every character can be perfect given enough time, regardless of skill or expertise. But there are no rewards worth having, no powers worth acquiring, and no one who gives a crap that you've done either. If you concentrate on a few key skills, you can top out in effectiveness so early on that you will spend the next 90% of the game wearing the same armor and using the same weapons to 1-hit kill every enemy in the game, and only bother with other crap to break up the tedium of being a perfect killing machine.

You know what's funny? I didn't do that at all. I just started exploring and found that as I did things, I got better at them! So I must not have been maximizing my potential, right? Well you see, that's the problem with this one. There is a difference between power gaming and min-maxing. One is a style of play, and the other is an exercise in extreme micromanagement. There's plenty of variety here. You're just ignoring what isn't optimal(one of the dirtiest words in the role playing lexicon).

The Butt-Kicker is unsatisfied, because the combat is crap. Here's how bad the combat is. Adept, the "normal" difficulty setting that the game starts on, has enemies taking 70% of the damage that your weapons are advertised to do and dealing 130% of the damage you would with an equivalent weapon/spell. That's how they decided to challenge you, by making you half as effective as your enemies. So, that spell you have that does 60 damage, really does 42 damage when you cast it, and 78 damage when you get hit by it. Beating a bear to death with a nerf bat is not the key to The Butt-Kicker's happy place.

First you're a perfect killing machine that can 1-hit kill everything in the game and now you're an ineffectual nerf bat wielding wimp? And you say this game has no variety! Point discounted on account of internal inconsistency.

The Tactician runs into the same problem as The Power Gamer. Every situation is best solved by a sneak attack with a Daedric bow for 3000 damage. That's the best way to clear every dungeon and win every fight, as well as the most realistic way for a person to survive.

And if you are playing a character with skill in neither archery nor sneak? Sneak attacks with a Daedric bow do crap damage when you hold your bow backwards and can be spotted by a sleeping bear. Also, did you actually bring in the realism argument? Really? Irrelevance aside, there are no Deadric bows in real life.

The Specialist is out of luck, because while he can totally create that character that he plays in every game, even if that character is a catman acrobat, he still can't play that character. Or, more accurately, the world doesn't give a shit who or what his character is. Race and gender barely even matter for fluff. Can you really play a character when the essential nature of who your character is has no impact on anything?

I could almost agree with you here, except that this is pretty much one of those limitations I was talking about in my previous post. There are precious few CRPGs where how you do things matters at all, and the ones that do are far more limited than Skyrim in other aspects. Even then, it's less "you can do anything, and we notice," and more "we took into account a few different play styles... hope you like one of them." If you want freedom of choice with measurable impact, go play PnP RPGs.

The Method Actor has no audience and {multiple choice - same outcome} syndrome. It's "But thou must!" from here to eternity. Nothing to play off of and minor amusement only within the confines of what's possible. You could role-play a schizo-prophetic thief who believes that he exists in a boring world full of useless automatons and he must steal all their keys in order to turn them all off. You could even have a decent time of it. You could also glue silly eyes onto your penis and chase the cat around the house with it. I don't think the latter would really be less fulfilling, artistically.

You're complaining about a single player game not having other players. Even games with branching choices eventually come down to the same few possible endings. The only contemporary game series I can think of that does better isn't an RPG at all(Way of the Samurai). Go play PnP or perhaps an MMO if you want an audience.

The Casual Gamer might not really have much to complain about since, when the game needed to compromise or choose, the spinner always landed on The Casual Gamer's side. Don't really wanna pick a class? Well, your class is "blah" You're a level "meh" "blah" who "so-sos" in everything. Have fun doing or not doing whatever. Thing is, they made the game too daunting for The Casual Gamer. Causal Gamer doesn't want to spend 180 hours getting attacked by frostspider and sassy nord at random. Casual gamer wants to put the controller down after an hour to check on his laundry before House starts.

Way to bash the casuals. It makes you look smart. No, really, it does. Also? Classless RPGs: they exist. Most of them offer far more freedom than traditional class based game systems. And TES has always been a class based system by only the most tenuous of definitions, so this is hardly a drastic or even surprising development.

 

[Phlakes]

No one told me it was an RPG, here I was thinking it was an action-adventure-RPG mix, like things don't have to be restricted to a dozen or less rule sets. Silly me.

 

[geK0]

-

a little off topic.

Could you refer me to some good RPG games? the one in the OP sounds pretty damn awesome and Id like to try more games like that.

edit: nevermind dumb question... assumed these were really oldschool games you were talking about.

Definitely going to pick up warband when I have some money, it looks pretty kick ass.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

The short version: there are a lot of ingredients in RPG stew, and if you get enough people together you'll be able endlessly argue which one is the Main IngredientTM.

Skyrim succeeds greatly in some aspects of RPGdom and fails greatly in some others.

This.

Of course some games are gonna have some RPG elements that are done better than Skyrim. I doesn't have to beat every game in every possible arena to be the best. It just has to beat every game individually.

Do I believe Skyrim is better than Fable 2? Yes.

And so on.

 

[Russell47]

Here's a thought: who cares?

 

[Russell47]

Here's a thought: who cares?

 

[Two-step]

snip

Now we're judging others intentions? I thought we weren't allowed to do that.
RPG is a meaningless moniker, as you have said. When I play UNO, I am Captain Javier Tremolito, a man of shrewd cunning and temperate demeanor, whiling away an evening before he must return to his ship, the light schooner Santa Selina. I have said this and now UNO is a role playing game. Forever.

What I say about how Skyrim needlessly fails to satisfy the appetites of different gamers this is based in both personal experience and dialogue with others. (The thing about the pizzas is also based in fact. Talking out of your ass is a thing for you, eh?) Perhaps you should learn more about these different play styles so that you can understand what is being discussed? If you can't figure out why two players who have different play styles and emphasize different things in play might suffer the opposite problem from the same mechanic, then it's been a waste of time responding to you.

 

[DocBalance]

(Original Thread title: Skyrim shouldn't be classified as an RPG: Discuss)



Skyrim is definitely not the best RPG because there is a distinct lack of roleplaying and well, character to the characters. Lydia is a prime example. She has no real character to speak of. At no point can I speak to lydia about what she thinks of what's going on or any subject. She just blindly accepts, points out that there's a cave when you pass by one and seems resigned to carry the player's burden.
She's not a follower, companion or anything. She's like a pet, doing exactly what she's told.
That's not a character. As far as I know, most of the companions are like this.

Lydia is what is known as a Housecarl. She's essentially a combination butler/bodyguard. She has been raised and trained to treat you, as her thane, as merely a superior whose commands she is supposed to carry out without question. She is a truly poor example of a companion, especially considering there is a group literally called "The Companions" that accompany you for several quests once you join them that have both compelling dialogue, character arcs, and commentary on the events of the world.

If Skyrim was a tabletop RPG all the players would be complaining of the extreme railroadingRailroading definition: When a Game master of a tabletop or Pen & Paper RPG restricts the players to a narrowly defined, planned path, much like how a train is restricted to its rails. Any attempt by the players to deviate from these rails is met by immovable resistance, pretty much like the invisible wall in video games.

Really? I've played through a good 80 hours of Skyrim and I've yet to get past a few steps in the main quest, because the game isn't forcing me to. Instead, I've explored the very enticing side stories, such as the Dark Brotherhood, the Thieves Guild, and The Companions to name a few of the longer and more lasting quest lines. I have yet to feel rail-roaded at all, to be honest. If I don't care for this dragon business, I can bugger it all for a lark and ignore it while they attack cities. If I decide I want to go explore caves, hunt bandits, rescue a kidnapped noble from a foreign power, or anything of the like, I can without so much as a disapproving cluck from the game. If Skyrim were a tabletop RPG, my GM would have outright hate-killed me by now for me complete disregard for the main quest line.

In Skyrim, there are very few or no consequences for your actions. For example, assume a player kills a shopkeeper. Their relatives inherit the shop, but they'll still sell you stuff and even give quests. The different dialogue options are a joke. 3 or 4 is the usual amount, but they have no real impact on anything. Older RPGs have had far, far more. I've seen one that had 18 options to start with. There is very little choice in skyrim.

Yes, if you kill a shopkeeper with no witnesses, then their descendants who have absolutely no idea that you are the murderer will continue to sell you, the paying customer, items. This is literally how the world works: If people don't know you killed someone, they won't treat you like you did.

Indeed, Very few quests have any kind of choice either. The ones I have encountered that do are side quests with no impact on the main story; they just earn the player some money/items, just like all the other quests, bar those that earn you a companion. The quests in skyrim have loot as their reward, which is pretty much expected, but it's no more than that. That is not expected of an RPG.

I must question whether you pay any attention to the NPCs in this world. After nearly every quest I've done that has any impact on the world, I've heard mention of it throughout the game by guards and NPCs in passing conversation. The Dark Brotherhood line is especially good about this. I killed a woman in Riften, and then a day later they were talking about it in Solitude, halfway across the continent! It was a big deal too, the guards boasted about how it would never happen in their city, the NPCs wept for the children she left behind, I was genuinely taken aback by the response I received from the world because of my actions.

You say there is very little choice, but just about every one of the sidequests gives you an abundance of choice. For the Dark Brotherhood, they capture you after the afore-mentioned kill and offer to let you join them, for a price. You can do that, if you choose. You can also simply walk away after you've paid your dues to them, or you can kill the leader and take up arms against the entire murderous society. Each choice is supported by the game, and it's just the beginning of the decisions you will make along the way. All the side-factions offer similar circumstances, and it's a real shame that you apparently haven't pursued them.

The only thing I found memorable about characters in skyrim was that they were not memorable at all. A role playing game has you play the role of a character, a role where you interact with other characters. But there is no character to the other characters in Skyrim.

I have, over the course of my time, met an orphan boy looking to hire an assassin, a coven of werewolf adventures with mixed feelings about their blessing/curse, an eccentric jester serial killer, an Emperor who had come to terms with the fact that I was going to kill him, and a thousand other interesting, varied characters. I'm beginning to suspect that you just aren't looking very hard.

 

[Keith Reedy]

This is all demonstrably false.

Thank you!
You understand.

He does not understand he just agrees, you don't have some great knowledge or understanding of what an rpg is. People consider different things rpgs. You think M&B is an RPG but can you prove it without using opinion. No because you have not truly factual definition to go by. I like skyrim I Role-play in it and consider it a role play game.

The only thing you have proven so far is that you dislike current RPGs

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Huh? Whatchu talking 'bout, Willis?

I've roleplayed more in Skyrim than I have in years. If I could enter my own dialogue in conversations and command my Argonian to mutter "Damn mammals" every once in awhile, I don't think I could roleplay more. He has tastes in food. He has preferences in race of mammal he doesn't mind, and those he despises. He has opinions on the empire, the rebels, hammerfell, Dwemer ruins, the Thalmor, and all kinds of things. He's unnerved by things. He has combat strategies that play to his biological abilities.

It's the best possible use of a blank slate, that I can draw whatever I'd like on it. Combat is entirely up to me. Cross-classing odd combinations is up to me. If I want to be a heavily armored illusionist, I can do that. Yes, the choices in dialog are pathetic. That's Bioware's thing, and this is Bethesda, king of large open (mildly glitchy) worlds and pristine slate characters that long for you to edify them.

And that you even thought to compare Just Cause 2 to an RPG is laughable. Just Cause 2 is an action game with RPG elemets, like damn near any action game these days. But you play no real role. Rico Rodriguez? Really? Don't make me laugh even harder.

 

[Draconalis]

Man... I hate that this thread is so far in... I concur with the OP wholeheartedly... but the first reply mentions D&D's freedom to build characters and combat. This is not the case of old school AD&D 2nd ed. It was the freedom to do anything, regardless of combat... and the consequences that come with doing those things.

I've played Skyrim for 3 or 4 hours... and it was enough to know I'm not impressed with the game at all.

I think it's an over-hyped, and overrated PoS.

 

[Draconalis]

What's with these new generation of "RPG" players coming here to enlighten us about how Role Playing is being able to dress your character up and go anywhere you want in some crappy 3D gameworld with shitty twitch gameplay, and the rest is UP TO YOU - is getting rather sickening.

I blame 3rd edition D&D personally... Lets you do whatever the hell you want, at the expense of limitations, creativity, and story.

 

[Jetsetneo]

I blame 3rd edition D&D personally... Lets you do whatever the hell you want, at the expense of limitations, creativity, and story.

I sincerely doubt you've play much of any modern PnP RPG to actually mean that. Its full of hyperbole.

 

[Draconalis]

I sincerely doubt you've play much of any modern PnP RPG to actually mean that. Its full of hyperbole.

I played enough of it to note the shift to a heavily combat oriented system at the expense of noncombat information. Regardless of my supposed exaggerations, I do mean it.

 

[A Free Man]

snip.

I'll be honest I didn't read your post in it's entirety so ignore my comments and call me ignorant if you wish but I'll go on anyway. I think I understand what you are saying and I completely disagree with you. The car metaphor you used is just plain wrong. Open world's and good combat systems are two of my most important factors when determining how good an RPG is. On the other hand the seats in cars are of almost no importance at all so to group the decisions together is nonsensical. I understand that we may differ in opinion there and you might value other aspects of a game more but that is certainly how I see it. Hell one of the best things about M&B and the reason I loved the first couple of games was it's relatively open world and combat system. As far as I'm concerned there is a lot of choice in Skyrim, clearly it is limited as are many games in the sense that to make a 100% choice based game would be near impossible and just not viable.

My reaction to your post my be slightly warped however as I am very against genres in general. I don't like grouping games (or movies or books) and then judging them in their groups. Perhaps you are right and Skyrim shouldn't be classified as an RPG but it is. So in my opinion it is an RPG and is a good game, and is therefore a good RPG regardless of it's contents.

 

[Jetsetneo]

I sincerely doubt you've play much of any modern PnP RPG to actually mean that. Its full of hyperbole.

I played enough of it to note the shift to a heavily combat oriented system at the expense of noncombat information. Regardless of my supposed exaggerations, I do mean it.

lol!

And I don't mean that lol in a mocking way, I just find it hilarious that in other boards (where pnp RPGs are the focus) that is the same exact line people use to express their rage at the shift from 3/3.5 to 4th ed.

Everybody's arguing in circles I swear.

 

[Draconalis]

lol!

And I don't mean that lol in a mocking way, I just find it hilarious that in other boards (where pnp RPGs are the focus) that is the same exact line people use to express their rage at the shift from 3/3.5 to 4th ed.

Everybody's arguing in circles I swear.

Yes... recent D&D articles on the escapist have brought this to my attention as well. These were my comments in said articles.

It's funny really. Most of the complaints on page one were complaints I had when 3rd edition first rolled around.

2nd edition fo life nigz!

"When 2nd edition really got focused on story [in 1989], we had what I call the first era of RPG decadence and it was based on story. The idea that the DM is going to tell you a story, and you go from point A to point B to point C. The narrative is linear and [the DM is a] storyteller going to tell you a static story, and you would just get to roll dice occasionally. 3rd edition came out and said 'To Hell with that,'

That... and the d20 system... are what I hate about 3rd edition.

Giving people the power to make whatever they want leads to people trying to be creative, but end up being dumb. I have always found that working within the confines of limitations brings about true creativity. Sure my Dwarf can't be a pally, but he can be a fighter/priest that aspires to be as like the paladins he witness in his youth.

Ugh... all these articles are doing for me is making me miss, and hate all the editions that aren't 2nd... all the more.