Why do people like Elder Scrolls games?

[Benni88]

I think the Elderscrolls games have always had a scope that other games have never been able to match. The playable area is far larger and more open than almost all similar games. The advantage of this is that it can be really fun to go and get lost in the wild. The disadvantage is that plot events may be less tailored/directed due to the number of additional variables which are influenced by the player's behaviour.

I've always been an elderscrolls fan, and will continue to be, as the freedom that bethesda games allow to the player is remarkable and something i still find very enjoyable.

 

[Bizzare Logic]

Actually, it was the Obsidian team that they hired to write New Vegas, not Bethesda proper. New Vegas is a fun game, but it's darn near unplayably buggy and crash-prone even after the patches that stopped it from deleting your save data.

It does a lot of things right, but it also does a lot of things very wrong and feels very "patchy" in places, following after that same old Obsidian feel. The writing is stronger than what Bethesda usually does, but by contrast the beginning of the game is much more linear and you have to play the system (or be really lucky) to bypass the initial "Wasteland Tour" it wants you to go through. If you do bypass the detour, you'll wind up too low a level to survive out there and probably wind up doing the detour-related quests anyway. The tops of the mountains are actually blocked by impassable barriers, where in the Bethesda games they let you cheese your way over them if you can.

And really, the endings aren't even that vastly different. It's really just four or five endings, with an added sentence depending on your karma, and then a list of all the factions you helped and where they are now. By contrast, the Bethesda games let you continue to adventure even after you win, so there's not really been need for "Endings".

Like I said, New Vegas is good - but it's not really much better than Skyrim.

 

[Amaror]

Oh god this AGAIN?
When will people get over the fact, that their personal opinion is NOT everyones opinion and is NOT a fact.

 

[Mirroga]

It's probably because the Elder Scrolls series play as the most faithful version of a Dungeons and Dragons Video Game. It has a linear storyline but you can faff about and annoy the DM...I mean avoid the railroad...I mean it's just a game which has a main storyline but has a heavy emphasis on freedom and exploration. There's few games right now that can give you so much freedom while having a wide world to explore.

 

[Polite Sage]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

Every dungeon, every quest is linear as hell with only one option that leads to success. What about dialogue choices? They all lead to same conclusion no matter what you do. What about gameplay? That boils down to whether you want to kite mobs with a sword, bow or magic bolts. What about the freedom in towns? They're just fetch quest and gear selling hubs.

So what is Skyrim without it's overworld? A first person dungeon crawler that has only ashes of non-linearity and RPG elements left. Every quest is always the same. Only thing that changes is what order you want to play them in or which ones you want to skip. What's the difference in Companions' dialogue if I join them before or after saving Skyrim? None. I am still referred as the "guy no one has never heard about". What about a world where almost every single NPC is an essential?
That's the "freedom" that Skyrim offers.

The overworld itself is not that good either. Looks good, but is plagued with same random encounters (every 3rd being a dragon encounter) over and over again. There is no feel of true exploration while every area is a copy pasta from the last one, and no reward or reason for doing so. All you're going to get is that your gear looks more swag.

This is what I was referring to with "pretty things" and "bling bling". Skyrim looks better than it's predecessors but that's all they improved with this installment. It's a good looking game that did nothing to improve the core gameplay mechanics that made the previous games good. Instead, it scrapped most of them and thus Skyrim actually has way less content than Morrowind OR Oblivion.

Sure, you can climb that mountain. For what reason? For sightseeing? I can see no other reason to do so, unless you're on another linear fetch quest. If you want a good walking and sightseeing simulator you should try out Space Engine or Dear Esther. At least those are not filled with sad excuses of "RPG elements that change the very fabric of reality".

 

[Zburator]

The lore of Skyrim and the Elder Scrolls in general is great, I must admit. The Daedra Gods are lovingly designed and many of the cultures such as the Dwemer and Dummer are awesome.

On the flip side, the script writing is freaking terrible and it brings me to my incredible hatred for what the RPG genre is becoming. The choices presented are hollow and have little effect on how the world reacts, the character relations (particularly the marriage system) is unprecedentedly bad and your character is by far, the biggest doormat of all time. Seriously! He agrees to anything he is asked, choice is piss all in the end.

I'd take my closed-off, yet meaningful RPG world like Dragon Age over an open, soulless, RPG world like Skyrim any day. I have 126 hours clocked in Skyrim and nothing to feel from it but shame.

That said, I'd sum the Elder Scrolls like this.

The Lore writer deserves a medal.

The Script writer deserves a bullet.

/rantfirstpost

 

[Mirroga]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

EDIT: But I suppose there's still no game in this time and age expansive enough that the mission giver would respond to my dark, sarcastic actions of presenting his child's head when my mission is to save said child. And then follow it up with a lie to start a whole riot or genocide.

 

[Polite Sage]

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

"Veering away from the norm" is supposed to be Skyrim's selling point. And whatever is the mission you're talking about? Disregarding quests objectives usually leads to some of these:

-You simply can't, the quest giver is an essential and you're forced to complete the quest the way he wanted.
-You can kill the quest giver, but no one gives a shit. Simply put, Quest Failed.
-You leave the quest in an eternal Quest Log limbo. No NPC gives a shit.

I can imagine there being one or 2 such quests that allow you this, but in a game that prides itself in "freedom" this should be a norm and not a rare exception for some longer quest lines.

 

[piinyouri]

Skyrim must've ran over darkmind35's dog, and burned their mother at the stake.


Anywho, they are fun. They always, have always had problems, both technical and otherwise, but they have always been fun in spite of them.

That's my answer.

 

[Thatrocketeer]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

Every dungeon, every quest is linear as hell with only one option that leads to success. What about dialogue choices? They all lead to same conclusion no matter what you do. What about gameplay? That boils down to whether you want to kite mobs with a sword, bow or magic bolts. What about the freedom in towns? They're just fetch quest and gear selling hubs.

So what is Skyrim without it's overworld? A first person dungeon crawler that has only ashes of non-linearity and RPG elements left. Every quest is always the same. Only thing that changes is what order you want to play them in or which ones you want to skip. What's the difference in Companions' dialogue if I join them before or after saving Skyrim? None. I am still referred as the "guy no one has never heard about". What about a world where almost every single NPC is an essential?
That's the "freedom" that Skyrim offers.

The overworld itself is not that good either. Looks good, but is plagued with same random encounters (every 3rd being a dragon encounter) over and over again. There is no feel of true exploration while every area is a copy pasta from the last one, and no reward or reason for doing so. All you're going to get is that your gear looks more swag.

This is what I was referring to with "pretty things" and "bling bling". Skyrim looks better than it's predecessors but that's all they improved with this installment. It's a good looking game that did nothing to improve the core gameplay mechanics that made the previous games good. Instead, it scrapped most of them and thus Skyrim actually has way less content than Morrowind OR Oblivion.

Sure, you can climb that mountain. For what reason? For sightseeing? I can see no other reason to do so, unless you're on another linear fetch quest. If you want a good walking and sightseeing simulator you should try out Space Engine or Dear Esther. At least those are not filled with sad excuses of "RPG elements that change the very fabric of reality".

0/10

Try harder. Most if not all the things you said here can be said about New Vegas, which according to you is a "Bethesda Game Gone Right". And your arguement about a No Overworld thing is stupid. Its a sandbox game. It's supposed to be mostly overworld.

OP: It's fun. What else kind of reason do you need?

 

[elvor0]

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

"Veering away from the norm" is supposed to be Skyrim's selling point. And whatever is the mission you're talking about? Disregarding quests objectives usually leads to some of these:

-You simply can't, the quest giver is an essential and you're forced to complete the quest the way he wanted.
-You can kill the quest giver, but no one gives a shit. Simply put, Quest Failed.
-You leave the quest in an eternal Quest Log limbo. No NPC gives a shit.

I can imagine there being one or 2 such quests that allow you this, but in a game that prides itself in "freedom" this should be a norm and not a rare exception for some longer quest lines.

Look, there seems to one main thing you're overlooking; it's a video game. There is only so much they can put in the game before it starts to collapse under it's own code.

One day I'm sure we'll have complete and utter freedom, but your "oh everything is just do this, then do that, then do that" can be applied to every game in existence if you want to boil it down to the simplicity you're stating in all of your posts. There is no game in existence that offers the amount of freedom you think Skyrim should have, because it's not technologically feasible to do so. Just think of the amount of man power and resources you'd need to have that level of fidelity and choice in everything in the game.

You seem to be under the impression that video games are magic, and that the magic coders can just will things into existence, and that by not allowing complete and un-negated freedom to do anything that your imagination dreams up is just them slacking in the wizarding department. Yes I know that's me being extremely hyperbolic, but your points and complaints are completely infeasible for current gaming technology to account for.

Relative to most games Skyrim has a lot of freedom. You seem to be confusing the concept of freedom in games with total control and allowance to do whatever. Of course there is going to be some constraints because no developer can ever make a game that offers anything and everything the player could possibly think of doing. This isn't D&D, where you can just make up the results, because every game in inexorably bound to what's in the code.

You want freedom, then you complain that people that enjoy climbing mountains for the sake of it are stupid. Do you not see how contradictory that statement is? I climb that mountain because I can, because I can sit on top of and check out the view, merely because I can and because it's there. Why do anything, you're still doing anything just for the sake of it if you want to view things like that.

And your statement about New Vegas is total bull; "over two hundred endings!", that's not true and you know it isn't, there's about five endings and the odd change in text at the ending monologue, that's not two hundred endings.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: Think about the amount of Manpower and resources you need to be able to make a game with that much choice. The voice acting, the coding, the graphics, animations, dialogue options etc etc.

 

[theblindedhunter]

The thing that had me picking up Skyrim and has me loving it is not so much what the Elder Scrolls games do but what they try to do. There's such an effort and attention put into the world, and a certain degree of passion for their lore, their characters, and those things that I appreciate. And no one else tries quite as admirably to give their players an entire world to wander through and discover.
They have never gotten everything right, and notably the combat is always almost unbearably lackluster, but they fail with such an effort that I can't help but appreciate them for it.

 

[Polite Sage]

Look, there seems to one main thing you're overlooking; it's a video game. There is only so much they can put in the game before it starts to collapse under it's own code.

One day I'm sure we'll have complete and utter freedom, but your "oh everything is just do this, then do that, then do that" can be applied to every game in existence if you want to boil it down to the simplicity you're stating in all of your posts. There is no game in existence that offers the amount of freedom you think Skyrim should have, because it's not technologically feasible to do so. Just think of the amount of man power and resources you'd need to have that level of fidelity and choice in everything in the game.

You seem to be under the impression that video games are magic, and that the magic coders can just will things into existence, and that by not allowing complete and un-negated freedom to do anything that your imagination dreams up is just them slacking in the wizarding department. Yes I know that's me being extremely hyperbolic, but your points and complaints are completely infeasible for current gaming technology to account for.

Relative to most games Skyrim has a lot of freedom. You seem to be confusing the concept of freedom in games with total control and allowance to do whatever. Of course there is going to be some constraints because no developer can ever make a game that offers anything and everything the player could possibly think of doing. This isn't D&D, where you can just make up the results, because every game in inexorably bound to what's in the code.

You want freedom, then you complain that people that enjoy climbing mountains for the sake of it are stupid. Do you not see how contradictory that statement is? I climb that mountain because I can, because I can sit on top of and check out the view, merely because I can and because it's there. Why do anything, you're still doing anything just for the sake of it if you want to view things like that.

And your statement about New Vegas is total bull; "over two hundred endings!", that's not true and you know it isn't, there's about five endings and the odd change in text at the ending monologue, that's not two hundred endings.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: Think about the amount of Manpower and resources you need to be able to make a game with that much choice. The voice acting, the coding, the graphics, animations, dialogue options etc etc.

With "200 hundred endings" (notice the "") I was referring Tod Howard's blowjob review where HE, THE MAIN DEVELOPER exclaimed that *FALLOUT 3* had over 200 endings. Cleared up? Howard and his team are knowns liars. Someone screencapped and put together all the bullshit they promised to fans through official channels.

None of the points I mentioned are "infeasible with current tech". F.ex. the barbarian. Easy. Use the same follower code for a while and BANG, add a timer or trigger for a backstab. Not hard at all. Maybe takes a minute or two to code. And what about everything else? Bethesda simply opted for the bling bling, instead of real content. I'm not saying OH GOD EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, I'm saying that Skyrim performs much poorer than it's predecesors in pretty much everything other than graphics department.

>voice acting
Easily achieved with a few more lines. There are PLENTY of games (most namely visual novels) that consist nothing than 40 hours of voice acting and still have MUCH MUCH smaller budget.
>the coding
Like my barbarian example. It's not hard, just copy pasta a few lines of code that's already done and maybe add few voice files. Or if an "essential" dies, just add some more lines that say "quest failed" and maybe some other reprecussions depending on the person killed. new Vegas achieved this pretty well.
>the graphics
Like I said, Bethesda went for a wider audience and needed all the bling bling they could get on the expense of actual gameplay and freedom.
>animations
Exactly how hard it is to add a few more animations? Even modders can do a better job than Bethesda in week. Though I'm not doubting Bethesda's capability, they just were lazy. Plus, you can use the same animations for many different NPCS.
>dialogue options
What is like every other good RPG ever made? They manage branching dialogue and have way more text and voice than Skyrim's one line "le knee arrows". Skyrim has much less voice acting than you actually think. Most of it is just repeated lines.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I really enjoy them.

I'm not sure that there is anything else to say :|

I probably dislike most of the stuff you play, but I don't make pointless inflammatory threads about it.
I play Skyrim and I played Fallout 3 for hours and hours, and some more hours because I enjoy it. I like the exploration, and I like the various dungeons, caves and pits, and I like the little things you find in certain caves that makes them unique. I enjoy the crafting aspect and I like to kill dragons and deathclaws and whatever.
I'd much rather go and try to climb a mountain for a couple of hours than shoot some minorities in a grey complex, just because some guy is telling me to do so.

This pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

 

[Polite Sage]

Oh and one last thing. I thought of reminding you of Howard's one biggest lies for Skyrim. You could just search "Skyrim" "quests" and "radiant AI", but I'm making your job easier.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/09/howard-skyrim-offers-infinite-procedurally-generated-quests/2

You've already been assured that you'll never run out of slayable dragons [hahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahahhahaha] in Skyrim. In an interview with Wired, director Todd Howard revealed that the game features an inexhaustible supply of quest content, as well.

Using the "Radiant" quest system, the game randomly generates missions for each of the in-game guilds, as well as tasks offered by other NPCs. Examples cited by Wired include collecting flowers for an alchemist or hunting for bandits.

This likely comes as bittersweet news for people who have experienced Bethesda games in the past. Sure, you'll never run out of content, but how long before you have to defeat a monster who's embedded in a tree, or go on a quest for the dagger of ^^^^^^ARTIFACTNAME?

I guess someone forgot to mention that the "Radiant Quest System" means just one repeatable quest for each of the Guilds. You COULD argue that they actually don't mention what's IN it, but when someone says "randomly generated quests" and "AI" in a same sentence and make it a BIG announcement, I think most people expect something more than one repeatable WoW style daily quest.

I couldn't find the pic in question (HDD has about a few thousand pics and then some more), but I can assure you, it was full of Howard's bullshit and Bethesda's lies. Also had some nice quotes where Howard claims CoD as a "hardcore game" and as such it's fans as Bethesda's possible target audience (like Bioware's "We want CoD audience wasn't enough). Though you most likely find it if you're interested enough to search for it. I'm too polite to go around wasting people's time while asking around.

Let's not beat around the bush. Bethesda has stopped making games and started churning out casual, instant gratification simulators for the audience that is swayed by the graphics and "free roam". Luckily there are mods that fix some of the inherent problems (on top of being a really shitty port), but if you sprinkle sugar over shit, it still stays shit.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Nobody is forcing you to play them are they?

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Honestly, I just find it fun because of the amount of freedom in the game and the amount of time it's possible to spend screwing around without doing anything useful. Hell, I spent 2 months screwing around before I could even shout, but that's probably because I got lost trying to find Ivarstead and get to the Throat of the World. In other words, people like The Elder Scrolls because there are no limits on what you can do.

 

[Polite Sage]

snip

Nobody is forcing you to play them are they?

YES! I waited for you to start grasping at straws. I DO love this!

"Don't like it don't play it"
"You can't criticize unless you play through the whole game"
"You obviously didn't hate it if you played through the entire game"

Something along those lines, right? And Bethesda's former fans should just stay silent as their series slides to shit? Oh wait,

Spoiler

"It's Bethesda's game, they can do whatever they want with it.

Right?

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Hey, I wonder what's going on in this thread.

Oh for fu--

People like The Elder Scrolls games because they think they're good and have different opinions from yours. End of Story.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Nobody is forcing you to play them are they?

YES! I waited for you to start grasping at straws. I DO love this!

"Don't like it don't play it"
"You can't criticize unless you play through the whole game"
"You obviously didn't hate it if you played through the entire game"

Something along those lines, right? And Bethesda's former fans should just stay silent as their series slides to shit? Oh wait,

Spoiler

"It's their game, they can do whatever they want with it.

Right?

Skyrim isn't perfect by a long shot but saying people are dumb and hating on them just for liking a game you don't is a little silly.

I enjoy Skyrim and Fallout and have spent many hours playing them. I prefer the gameplay of Morrowind but the graphics are horribly aged. I'm hoping Bethesda can further refine what they have learned from Skyrim in the next installment.

Your description of the skills kind of makes me think you haven't played it for any length of time either.

My Skyrim character is level 62 and I have recently played many amazing mods by the community. It has a lot of promise in that respect especially with steams subscription method.