Things about skyrim that worry you?
- Thread starter Hunter65416
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I never claimed it wasn't. Simply pointed out that you couldn't know.Imbechile said:
Check my quote. Wasn't talking about the characters 'looking good' was talking about their movement.
Let me make it a bit easier to understand. What did they remove? Why were those things needed in any way?
Do you ever think that maybe if you find 99 percent of the game worthless it may not be a series of games for you? I take it you like your games linear?Stammer said:
I didn't know that. It's funny to think a short game like Ghostbusters is over 10GB by comparison as per my Halloween Steam Sale download.RiouChan said:
The reality is that this fact means nothing, but it does give you the impression that the world might be more basic and simplified than people want.
Im just worried that i will shame myself in front of the cute girl who works in EB. I mean, she has already seen my reactions to such titles as Dark Souls and Shogun 2. But what will she think when i ejaculate as she hands me a copy of Skyrim?
The whole thing with getting worthless major skills and spending time skilling specific skills to get the perfect 5-5-5 or 5-5-1 levelling isn't complicated as such if you do some homework but it's annoying to do. Not to mention that being "forced" into major skills you don't actually use to avoid levelling, makes the whole idea of major skills moot. What's so major about a skill you avoid using until you got the "perfect" statdistribution. Of course you're not forced to level efficiently, but it was the best route.Imbechile said:
And in the end a character would have maxed out all skills and attributes and diversion between classes disappears. Not to mention that the removal of attributes doesn't really affect the game. So your weapon damage is only tied to your skill level rather than your skilllevel + the strength attribute that you got by levelling said skill.
What Bethesda did was ensuring that 2 characters you play don't end up the same due to different stamina/health/magicka levels and perks assuming you allocate the points you get in a different manner. Thus you create diversity because you "simplfied" the game and from what I can foresee, it's an improvement.
I worry that I won't be able to hold back my tears when my copy arrives.
Other than that, nothing really.
Other than that, nothing really.
THIS[/] god If this November doesn't kill me, I'm not sure the god of death himself could manage it.Jove said:
Um, Honestly, the only thing about Skyrim that i didn't like, i have forgotten about(gameplay wise). It was something that was released on one of the many teaser articles, or maybe it came out on a youtube video. Other than that, I kinda dislike the fact that they changed the way that some of the races look, like orcs don't look quite as orcish anymore, but that isn't even a minor inconvenience.
Yes, they do.jboking said:
It's in the gameplay demonstrations. It doesn't zoom right in like before, but their eyes still lock on with that signature unblinking stare. And it makes the conversations look just as bad as Oblivion and Fallout 3.
I don't really have much of a universal preference. Honestly, Mass Effect is my #2 favourite game of all time, and that's specifically including all of the side-missions and exploring.gavinstaceyvg said:
I think maybe though that this has something to do with just how each game presents its side-quests. I have insane OCD, so if I see my quest log is actually becoming bigger as I complete more of them then suddenly each of the quests lose their urgency and it becomes more of a checklist than a game to me.
Though I'm also pretty sure I remember hearing at some point that they were going to fix that problem and make it so most quest-givers only hand out quests that can be completed within the vicinity. That way you aren't getting one quest, and then getting 50 more along the way to completing that one quest, and having your list growing to ridiculous proportions.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I'm also kind of worried that the game is going to be released with oodles and oodles of glitches, and that it's going to be virtually unplayable. The way they handle the Fallout and TES IP's and the naming of their companies I don't know who makes what anymore, I just know that everyone says that every recent Fallout and TES game has been glitchier than Bob's wrist from Reboot.
That it's nothing but a slightly improved version of Oblivion rather than the combined work of around 100 people over 3+ years.
Yeah yeah "200+ hours of content!" - Quality over quantity IMO, and Oblivion had plenty of the former with only a very thin layer of the latter. I fully expect the same in Skyrim and so far, especially taking consideration the first 23 minutes of the game, the above is true.
Yeah yeah "200+ hours of content!" - Quality over quantity IMO, and Oblivion had plenty of the former with only a very thin layer of the latter. I fully expect the same in Skyrim and so far, especially taking consideration the first 23 minutes of the game, the above is true.
Yeah, welcome to the poleHunter65416 said:
Wtf? Are you telling me every combat ending has a cutscene? Is it like V.A.T.S?Hunter65416 said:
What I meant was that when someone brings up Vampires, Werewolves are usually thrown into the mix at some point and I'm sure that thought didn't go past Skyrim as well. I'm sure there are games that have vampires and no mention, throught or reference to anything Wolf, but in this case of this game, as evidence has proven, that is not going to be case. Vampires? Oh and there are some wolves, that seems to be the trend these days.Satsuki666 said:
