The World of Skyrim Means Nothing...

[wurrble182]

so what if most of the characters in skyrim are brainless mountain hicks with nothing interesting going on in their lives? to me that makes it more realistic than most games, take mass effect 3 for example, where commander shepard just happens to run into every important citizen from every species in the same 5 recurring rooms of a citadel of billions and just happens to turn up every important reaper fighting artifact in the galaxy.

 

[viranimus]

Here's why: every RPG you've ever played casts you as an immortal unstoppable badass with magic powers clothed in artifacts drawn from the hoary mists of legend- who's forced to put up with the nonsense of unwashed peasants, nobly sacrifice himself when prompted and fall in love with whatever perky set of tits first walks on set.

Ahem, Both Dark and Demon souls would like to have a word with you alone, and in private. Dont mind the 50 lb axe and Club respectively being wielded by each. Surely thats just there for ornamental purposes.

A: You are not immortal, your dead.
B: Your about as frail as a bubble boy
C: Even if you are badass theres something even more so right around the next corner.
D: No peasants to deal with
E: No love interest

So yeah, not "every" RPG. Most? yes, all? Nope. So yes. Go play Souls, either one. Then you really wont care that much about skyrim any more because the only failing the souls games has is being damn near devoid of a story, and after playing it long, you wont care what level of story Bethesda has to offer because youll be content with anything.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Why the hell would you want that ?

All things considered, the Skyrim engine is new and shiny.

Wouldn't you rather have something that actually provided some good combat, FFS ?

Fuck new and shiny. Gameplay over graphics, remember ?

Well, Oblivion didn't have particularly engaging combat either, but they made Fallout 3 and New Vegas out of it. I'd say they could make a Fallout game out of Skyrim fairly easily.

Yea, and Fallout 3 and Vegas' combat sucked too. Vegas was good DESPITE the engine.

I'd rather have the Fallout 1/2 engine, if it was either or.

Unfortunately, the era of the "Tactical, Turn-Based, Isometric adventure RPG" has long passed. While I loved Fallout 1 and 2, I adore the Combat in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. It's not perfect, but it works with the new genre the series has become. I'd say the way they made the different factions in New Vegas behave differently when you fight them made the combat somewhat tactical again. You have to consider WHO you're fighting before you start shooting. The Legion begaves differently than the NCR, both are different than the Khans and Fiends, and they're all different than the Brotherhood or Boomers. They all favor different weapons and have armor of varying qualities. I loved having to consider my tactics when a Legion Assassin Squad would show up because I had just been fighting Cazadores, and my tactics of "PUNCH THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!!" doesn't always work against a squad who have set up with a Super Sledge, a Grenade Rifle, and a couple 12.7 SMGs.

so what if most of the characters in skyrim are brainless mountain hicks with nothing interesting going on in their lives? to me that makes it more realistic than most games, take mass effect 3 for example, where commander shepard just happens to run into every important citizen from every species in the same 5 recurring rooms of a citadel of billions and just happens to turn up every important reaper fighting artifact in the galaxy.

All things considered, Shepard is THE kind of person that would run into all the most important people in the Citadel because he's pretty goddamn important. In ME1, he's the first Human Spectre and in charge of tracking down Space Hitler. In ME2, he's just come back from the dead and is trying to unravel the mystery of what's happening to all the colonies that are disappearing, all while working for a group that's considered terrorists. In ME3, he's THE go to person on Reaper knowledge. He's pretty much THE most important person in the galaxy during that time.

 

[pilouuuu]

These games would be so good if they had freedom AND interesting characters and quests. Right now it's like an action adventure. A hack n' slash hiking simulator.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Why do people want to kill kids so badly? I don't understand the appeal... maybe I'm not a psychopath or even a sociopath...

Explain this to me OP, cause I don't get it.

I don't think it's the desire to kill kids exactly, but more about there being NPCs that are inexplicably immortal. I personally don't care, because I'm not the kind of person who goes into murder spasms and kills a town full of people, even in games I actually like. The argument eventually just became the "I want kids to be killable" against the "You're just psychopaths" sides of the argument.

 

[Murmillos]

Why do people want to kill kids so badly? I don't understand the appeal... maybe I'm not a psychopath or even a sociopath...

Explain this to me OP, cause I don't get it.

There are very few people who want to "openly" kill kids (but they just do it for the perverted lolz), but most just find that its 'bad game logic' that when a dragon is toasting and killing everybody else, a kid can just randomly run around on fire and not die.

I've seen in once instance, a giant being lead into town, kill all the guards, men and women in a single hit, but launch a kid into next Tuesday but the kid just gets up and continues to run around unfazed.

 

[Legendsmith]

It would be great if we didn't need to post a new thread about this every time someone realises it.

Skyrim is shallow. It sold well because it looked shiny and had good marketing.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Hmm, I just finished playing Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City over the last 2-3 weeks, back to back. I have to say that I really liked the characterisation of the Joker, particularly when he's calling Batman and leaving messages on his 'answering machine' - obviously there's plenty of existing material to draw upon, but the the little details that flesh him out, and the classic humour, really blow away any characterisation done by Bethesda. Now that the Skyrim engine is looking so nice, I hope that they can now put a lot of work into developing more compelling characters, stories and get decent acting - voice and otherwise. They seem to be taking that more seriously over time, but I think they could learn a lot from the Batman games and GTA IV to start with, and look further afield at TV and stage acting/stories and develop a level of narrative sophistication, like Rockstar appears to be aspiring to.

 

[Rikomag132]

snip

Wow, thanks for not spoiling the main storyline, I mean it's not like it would be really fucking annoying or anything.

 

[Beat14]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I assume you're not forgetting the part where they make money with game. Being able to work freely without deadlines, the business side of making a game and having to make/improve/fix the technical part means modders have much more time to make what they want to make.

I'm just thankful mods have something that allows them to exist.

 

[SajuukKhar]

But here I am.. typing baffled, that as much as you defend the bullshit of The Elder Scrolls lore/gameplay/logic, you are unwilling to accept that the developers that it would be cool that logic of the world make it so that one has to use two different weapons. One for man, one for monsters....

Because that isn't cool, or smart, that's just stupid.

I can understand needing a silver weapon to like fight ghosts, or do extra damage against shit like werewolves, but needing an entire extra blade for the sole reason of "we made it that a sharp blade can't do anywhere near as much damage as an equally sharp blade because its not made out of a special "anti-monster" material is just dumb.

Its a fucking sword, like I wouldn't care if one did slightly more damage to monsters then the other, but NEEDING a 2nd sword just to fight monsters is fucking dumb, and arbitrary. It just exists to create FALSE complexity by imposing an BS and unreasonably stupid limit on the player.

Wow, thanks for not spoiling the main storyline, I mean it's not like it would be really fucking annoying or anything.

Dude its been 6 months, get over it. Its like getting pissed if someone says Snape killed dumbledor.

I agree with QTE's and the over use of cutscenes, but dice rolls and turn based combat/tactical rpgs is the shit. (when done well especially)

I like to relax, plan out my moves, strategize when I play rpgs. Take a swig of brandy between turns, maybe. Not have to be all tensed out and having to use my reflexes & mash buttons. That's for when I want to play an action game see. And if I'm gonna do that, I'd rather play one with actual decent combat, like Dark Souls or Severance, say. I like games that have an identity, not jacks of all trades, masters of none.

I can't stand dice-roll and turn-based things mostly because those games lack urgency during combat.

I mean I get were people say Skyrim lacks urgency in its MQ, because it does, but really turn-based games are the single least urgent form of combat ever, you can sit there for 4 days in the middle of a fight and never die because you haven't taken your turn, thus the enemies cant do anything.

Yeah it gives you time to "plan shit out" but if your original plan doesn't work there's no form of negative consequence for that because you can just sit there for infinity planning a better next move.

In Skyrim if you fuck up, your fucking death because you just aggored like 6 Dragur death-overlords who now bum-rushed you and are attacking you at once, you actually have to face the consequences of fucking up instead of getting a infinite time ti sit around and plan.

Furthermore you cant be a jack-of-all-trades in Skyrim, without perks in a skill tree yeah you may have it at 100 but that doesn't mean much of anything.

They do tell you what happens to the hero of Oblivion you can talk to him in Skyrim. He or she just turns into Sheogorath in every way. Yeah I guess the Shivering Isles did happen. If you are wondering how you know this Sheogorath mentions in his quest in Skyrim about how he was there when Martin turned into a "Dragon god."

I know he is Sheo, but other people dont. People see him as the Sheo that always has been, and have forgotten his past.

Just saying; I shouldn't, as an Imperial, be able to waltz into a Stormcloak encampment. There should be some sort of conflict. I should be yelled at, at the very least. It isn't that the people of Skyrim have their own stances on the War but...well, there doesn't seem to be anything war related happening until you pick a side (not counting the near execution).

.............. You do get yelled at for wearing imperial armor in a stormcloack camp and vise-versa

 

[SajuukKhar]

Of course modders have more time and freedom. Does it matter? Not really.

I'm just looking at two finished products: Skyrim and Nehrim, and saying which one is better. IMO of course. Which one had more time in development or money behind it is irrelevant, its the game that matters.

Because the limitations that the respective content makers have to work under don't matter, nor should they be taken into consideration when reviewing each maker's final product ?

I am not really sure if you actually believe what you just said or not.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

But here I am.. typing baffled, that as much as you defend the bullshit of The Elder Scrolls lore/gameplay/logic, you are unwilling to accept that the developers that it would be cool that logic of the world make it so that one has to use two different weapons. One for man, one for monsters....

Because that isn't cool, or smart, that's just stupid.

I can understand needing a silver weapon to like fight ghosts, or do extra damage against shit like werewolves, but needing an entire extra blade for the sole reason of "we made it that a sharp blade can't do anywhere near as much damage as an equally sharp blade because its not made out of a special "anti-monster" material is just dumb.

Its a fucking sword, like I wouldn't care if one did more damage to monsters then the other but NEEDING a 2nd sword just to fight monsters is fucking dumb, and arbitrary. It just exists to create FALSE complexity by imposing an BS and unreasonably stupid limit on the player.

I think the internal logic of the series says that the Silver Sword is supposed to be used against Monsters because the metal itself is comparably delicate to a Steel Sword, so the "magical" nature of the metal being much more useful against monsters where the Steel Sword, which is much stronger, is more utility to Humans and non-magical creatures. Admittedly, I don't know anything about the series itself to back that up, it's just my personal speculation and observations on the series seemingly trying to inject some semblance of "pseudo-science" along side the magic of the world.

 

[Emiscary]

Here's my problem: why do I want to do any of that?

You can do damn near anything, but the world can't react in a believable way to any of it. Why bother killing a person when it's just a puppet with no identity? Besides, how much freedom do you really have? How many ways can you interact with the world aside from killing people and taking their stuff?

I'd rather a game that restricts my freedom, prohibitively if necessary, but provides a world and characters that react to my actions.

And no, having guards say, "Perhaps you can brew me some ale" when I get 50 points in alchemy is not sufficient.

Basically this. If I want to get revenge on somebody who kidnapped me in my sleep, I want to chop off their fingers one by one, put a leash on them, and parade them around town. I want to tell them to call up all of their friends, all of their friends' friends, and let everybody know that I'm the new sheriff in town, and they'd better respect me, or else.

That's freedom. Putting a sword through someone and stealing their loot? All that does is ensure there can be no interesting plot, no interesting relationships amongst the NPCs, because any one of them could be dead at any given time.

All or nothing.

Unfortunately we don't have the technology to pander to the whims and desires of the depraved.

I only went for the evil version because it had already been brought up. I play paragons 90% of the time, so just substitute severed fingers with hiring a bard to follow me on my journeys and then sing about my great deeds in a tavern, so the entire fucking realm can know how epic I am, so I can use my influence to overthrow the evil king and open up some free elections.

Don't have the technology for it yet, all right, that's fair. But that's like setting out to build a game that can be enjoyed purely for its photorealistic beautiful scenery... back on the SNES. You have to understand that what you're doing is impossible, and that you need to pick up the slack elsewhere.

Give me a strong plot, give me compelling characters, mystery and intrigue and plot twists and drama... and everywhere else, freedom. Sure.

Don't get me wrong it is enjoyable to play as an evil bastard - my latest Skyrim build is a serial killer; but there will always have to be limitations,because quite simply being evil is the one of most imaginative things you can be. And there's no way developers could let you do whatever twisted thing you wanted, it would just be too much of an undertaking.

I guess the best thing we could hope for would be to give a few more ways of being evil.

Didn't Hannibal Lecter once explain that the biggest thing that separates serial killers from everyone else is their imagination?

Point is, he's right. Here's a rule of thumb for "evil" character design: give me the option to escalate things.

Ever notice how all RPGs have an "intimidate" function, but it could very easily be relabeled "bluff" because you're forbidden from following through on your threats? Here's a thought: intimidate should be followed by "vicious beating", and then "dagger to the throat".

And as for the elaborate torture scenarios described above? You don't *NEED* to be Ramsay Bolton, but when it comes to characters who've given me personal cause to be pissed off? The one's who've kidnapped me, harmed my loved ones, that kinda thing? Give me the chance to savor the moment. I don't need to parade my enemies down the town square, but I'd *love* an opportunity to hear them beg a little after I've left them in a broken heap on the floor. Also the "money shot" in scenes like that are a perfect opportunity to include some gore in the game. When I'm upset with someone, I don't mind watching a blade pass through their esophagus slowly. Point of fact I kind of enjoy it.

Oh, and the "WON'T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?" people: I wanna be able to kill the kids in Skyrim because the kids in Skyrim are universally spoiled/whiny brats who seem hell bent on engendering my ill will- and are fully capable of fucking me over by witnessing my crimes, yet can't be silenced. Ever. I have to listen to this line:

"Oh look, another wanderer here to lick my father's boots. Good job."

Every. Fucking. Time. I wanna visit Whiterun. Every time. And if it's not the prick kid calling me a lickspittle, it's the dumbass kid telling me how he likes to practice with his fists, or the brat kid telling me to go cook her dinner.

I already don't much care for kids. They're brainless proto-humans who're convinced that because their teachers/parents are nice enough not to beat them that they're untouchable and infallible. The kids in Skyrim are without exception irritating caricatures of the very worst kinds of children. And the game's mechanics when it comes to crime/violence are set up to allow them to fuck me over (IE: they're the witnesses that're impossible to get rid of). And they all have the same voices. Which remind me of a: stoned pre pubescent Macaulay Culkin and a Prom Queen who's had her toe stepped on by a horse respectively.

 

[SajuukKhar]

No, they should not.

Do you remember Gothic 3? It was so buggy, it was literally not playable. 50% of players could not even get the game to launch. Why was it so buggy? Because the studio working on it were rushed to hell and back and went through some financial problems.

So, does that excuse the bugginess of Gothic 3? Of course not. When reviewing a final product, the quality of the product matters, not what went on in development.

Considering that the quality of the final product, and what happened in development, are intrinsically related, yes it should be taken into account.

did I EVER say that having a crappy development cycle gives a 100% write-off for its problems? no.